JAGIR SINGH Vs. SURJAN SINGH AND 9 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's revision from an interlocutory order dated 24th July, 1964, of Shri Brij Mohan, learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Zira, in effect refusing to permit the Plaintiff to examine his witnesses other than Surjit Singh and Hira Singh who were present on 24th July, 1964. The case for their examination was adjourned to 29th August, 1964. The impugned order of which a certified copy has been filed and the original of which I have also seen from the record, is so worded that I find it difficult to follow it or to make any sense out of it except by resorting to guess -work. The language of the order defective as it is, literally construed conveys no clear or coherent idea. It, however, appears that presumably the learned Subordinate Judge did not allow Witnesses other than the two mentioned above to be examined because according to the learned Subordinate Judge their names had not been clearly specified. Even so it is difficult to understand as to why the third witness Jagir Singh who was also present was not allowed to be examined on the next date of hearing. Kabul Singh and Chhur Singh were, however, examined on 24th July, 1964, before adjourning the case.

(2.) FROM the record it is quite clear that on 1st October, 1963, the Plaintiff had applied for summoning five witnesses including the Civil Surgeon, Incharge of; Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, Dr. D.D. Puri, Assistant Surgeon Incharge of the same hospital, Kirpal Singh, Piare Lal, S.H.O. Railway Station, Ferozepur and Kabul Singh, A.S.I. Police Station, and a sum of Rs. 115 was deposited as, expenses for these witnesses. I also find a list of 14 witnesses filed by the Plaintiff on 20th December, 1963. The suit, it may be pointed out, had been instituted on 20th, August, 1962 and issues were framed on 25th September, 1963, the next date for evidence being 23rd October, 1963. From this, it is obvious that within five days of. the framing of the issues, list of witnesses and the process -fee was put in by the Plaintiff. On 23rd October, 1963, there was recorded a note, presumably by the Ahlmad, that the Presiding Officer had been transferred. The case was accordingly directed to come up for necessary orders on 30th October, 1963. On that date also a note was recorded by the Ahlmad that the Presiding Officer had been transferred), with the result that the case was directed to come up on 23rd November, 1963, for necessary orders. On 23rd November, 1963, it was adjourned to 21st December, 1963. On that date again, the Presiding Officer was supposed to be on leave and the' case was directed to come up on 30th December, 1963, on which date again the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was directed to come up for necessary orders on 30th January, 1964. On 30th January, 1964, as the order shows, the record of the case was not before the Court. It was accordingly adjourned to 21st February, 1964. For the same reason again the case was adjourned on 21st February, 1964 to 24th March, 1964. On 24th March, 1964, the Plaintiff's witnesses were not present with the result that the Court adjourned the case to 29th April, 1964 on payment of Rs. 10 as costs, directing that the Plaintiff should bring his witnesses on his own responsibility. On 29th April, 1964, again the Presiding Officer was not present, presumably having gone on tour. Apparently, the Reader directed the case to come up on 29th May, 1964 for necessary orders. On that date the case was adjourn -ed to 24th July, 1964, with a direction to the parties to bring their witnesses on their own responsibility. The above resume of the proceedings clearly shows that the trial of this case has been far from satisfactory reflecting little credit on our judicial process, and the parties were hardly to blame for this delay; certainly not the Plaintiff. The reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned order are also difficult to appreciate. But what is completely beyond my comprehension, and seems to be almost indefensible in law, is, that when the case was being adjourned by the trial Court to 29th August, 1964, because the Court was, as is quite clear on the record, desirous of recording evidence in other cases, in preference to the present one, although, admittedly at least three witnesses were actually present, why should the examination of the other witnesses for the Plaintiff have been completely shut out. This course appears to be unwarranted and legally unsupportable. Rules of procedure, as has so frequently been pointed out by this Court, are designed to facilitate justice and further its ends. They are not meant to punish or penalise the suitors or to trip them up by hampering the cause of justice; and if the case was to be adjourned by the Court on 24th July, 1964 to the next date of hearing, more than a month later, for examination of some of the Plaintiff's witnesses, I fail to see any legal justification, far less propriety, for restricting the Plaintiff's evidence to only two witnesses mentioned in the impugned order.

(3.) THE legal position thus seems to be fairly clear. If a party's case is not covered by the proviso to Rule 1, Order 16, and there is no want of bona fides and no abuse of the process of the Court, then the Court would not be justified in refusing to a suitor process for his witnesses, whom otherwise the Court is competent to summon: indeed, it is, generally speaking, a suitor's right to obtain such process and the Court is expected to render in the normal course reasonable assistance in effecting service.