P.S.PATWALIA,J - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.3.2005 vide which the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by court order. A reading of the order would show that the learned trial Court found that on the earlier date of hearing it was ordered by the Court that the plaintiff would not be permitted to examine any other witness on 18.3.2005 except PW-1 Shri Mehboob Hasan. It is further recorded that the plaintiff has availed of sufficient opportunities for leading his evidence. Issues were framed on 12.05.2004 and since then no list of witnesses was filed by the plaintiff except an application filed by his counsel on that very date i.e. 18.3.2005 for summoning witnesses.
(2.) MR . Palli, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner contends that a reading of the order dated 14.1.2005 the date immediately preceding the date on which the petitioner's evidence was closed would show that no statement was made by his counsel that he would not examine any witness other than the plaintiff Mehboob Hasan The order made on 14.1.2005 reads as under : "Present : Shri Shaukat Ali, Advocate for the plaintiff. Shri D.R. Lakhani, Advocate for the defendant. One PW i.e. PW1, Sh. Mehboob Hasan is present and his statement is partly recorded. Cross-examination of the said witness is deferred on the request of witness on the ground that he is not feeling well. Today is the last opportunity for the plaintiff to lead and conclude his entire evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that on the next date of hearing he will not examine any other witness except PW1. The case is adjourned to 18.3.2005 for recording the cross- examination of PW1 Shri Mehboob Hasan. The plaintiff will not be permitted to examine any other witness in his evidence on the next date of hearing. Last opportunity shall remain intact." Reading this order Mr. Palli contends that what had in fact been contended by his counsel was that on the next date he would examine only the plaintiff while the remaining witnesses would be examined on any other date which the Court may have granted. Still further, it is conceded that reading of the various orders would show that only two opportunities were given to him on 14.5.2004 and 10.9.2004 when no PW was present. On the third opportunity i.e. 14.1.2005 the plaintiff was examined and the case was adjourned after deferring the cross-examination of the plaintiff. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is a little harsh as his evidence has been closed without reasonable opportunity being granted to him to produce the same. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Devi Sahai v. Municipal Committee, Narnaul, 1989(2) RRR 434 (P&H) : (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 435 and contended that a reading of the said judgment would show that this Court has taken the view that the rules of procedure are meant for administering substantial justice and not to cause hindrances therein. In the aforementioned judgment this Court has referred to Order 18 Rule 4 whereby the Court can for reasons to be recorded direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage.
(3.) AS against this learned counsel for the respondents submits that the counsel for the petitioner had himself stated that he would not examine any witness except PW-1 i.e. the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now wriggle out of the statement made by his counsel. It is further contended by the learned counsel that according to Order 16 Rule 1 a list of witnesses and summons is to be given within 15 days of the framing of the issues. In the present case issues were framed on 12.3.2004 and the list of witnesses had only been giver an 12.5.2004. He contends that in view of the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 even that list of witnesses could not be entertained and, therefore, evidence of the plaintiff has rightly been closed. He further states that the petitioner in fact did not even make an application for summoning witnesses within 15 days of the framing of the issues.;