G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS order will dispose of three revisions-Civil Revision No. 3766 of 1994; Civil Revision No. 3767 of 1994 and Civil Revision No. 3768 of 1994 filed by the petitioner against the three separate orders passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Gurgaon, in different civil suits pending between the parties. The learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner by observing that the petitioner has failed to take steps for producing his evidence despite sufficient opportunities have been given to it.
(3.) SHRI Hemant Kumar, Advocate has argued, and in my opinion his argument merit acceptance, that the defendant-petitioner has not to be blamed in taking steps for examining two official witnesses. On its part the petitioner did take steps for service of summons of Naib Tehsildar and Clerk of the Income-tax Department. It appears that the learned Trial Court has taken extremely hyper technical view of the provisions regarding summoning of the witnesses. Mere fact that the petitioner bad not indicated in the summons that the summons be served on the Clerk of the Income-tax Department through his Head of the Department, cannot be a ground for drawing a conclusion that the petitioner has been guilty of negligence. So far as Naib Tehsildar is concerned it was reported that he was not available in his office. For this the petitioner can hardly be blamed.;