Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26th March, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, whereby the evidence of the defendant, the petitioner herein, has been closed by order on the ground that it was the second effective opportunity granted for leading defendant's evidence and both were not availed.
(2.) ON 26th March, 2014, a prayer was made that defence witness Lakha Singh is unable to attend Court to depose for reason of threat of harm from certain persons. This was the pleaded case in the application seeking adjournment. The case pleaded therein was not that the witness was ill and, therefore, is unable to attend court proceedings. It appears rather strange that the trial Judge without due application of mind and without reading the application has clubbed threat with illness theory to conclude on denial of request for a further date for cross examination of Lakha Singh as the best possible order to make in the circumstances. In the application there is not even a whisper of illness of the witness justifying absence. The request for adjournment has been found by the learned trial judge to be a lame excuse to get another date. It is not necessary to traverse the facts of the case since they have been extensively incorporated in the order dated 8th January, 2014 passed by this Court in CR No. 4912 of 2013, filed by the petitioner against the earlier order dated 22nd July, 2013 closing the evidence of the defendant. This Court in the order has recorded as follows: - It was strange that the trial Court has closed the evidence of the defendants by virtue of impugned order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P -3), without affording adequate opportunities to them, to conclude their evidence.
(3.) IT has been recorded by this Court in the aforesaid order issued in the earlier litigation that the defendant's turn for leading its evidence arose for the first time on 29th May, 2013 when the plaintiffs closed their evidence. It has also been recorded that the defendant had deposited process fee and diet money for examining the official witnesses mentioned in para no. 7 of the petition. It was also affirmed that the trial Court ought to have granted adequate opportunities to the defendant to conclude its evidence. The production of such evidence was essential to decide the real controversy between the parties which is a legal requirement of a fair trail. It was ultimately directed that the trial Court would provide two more effective opportunities to the defendant to conclude evidence subject to costs imposed.;