S.S. Grewal, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court whereby the Plaintiffs suit was dismissed after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well against the order of the first appellate Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiff appellant.
(2.) THE main contention raised on behalf of the Plaintiff -appellant is that the Plaintiff was not given adequate opportunity to produce his evidence that three adjournments were granted either because the Presiding Officer was on leave or the new Officer had not joined after transfer of the earlier Presiding Officer and also on three dates no evidence could be recorded as members of the Bar were on strike. Record of the lower Court indicates that only one adjournment was granted when the Advocates were on strike whereas on three occasions the Plaintiff did not produce any evidence and on other three occasions the Presiding Officer was on leave or new Officer has not joined. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that since no adequate opportunity had been granted to the Plaintiff -appellant to produce his evidence in his case the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the Courts below cannot be legally sustained. The same are hereby set aside and the Plaintiff is granted two more opportunities to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility and thereafter the trial Court shall give two similar opportunities to the defendant to produce her evidence and decide the case expeditiously preferably within four months. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs through out. Both the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court of Sub Judge, Zira on 16.1.1995. The record of the trial Court shall be sent forthwith to the trial Court through special messenger. Copy of order be given dasti.;