Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 952 of 1976 and Civil Revision No. 1088 of 1976.
(2.) AMAR Dass son of Hari Dass, resident of Bassi Tehsil Sjrhind, now at Karnal filed a suit for possession of house No 632/2, situate at Bassi Pathnan, Tehsil Sirhind. District Patiala against Girdhari Lal. The suit is pending in the Court of Shri Sarwan Singh Chahal. Sub -Judge 1st Class, Bassi. The plaintiff's evidence in the case was closed on 17th April 1974, and the case was adjourned to 4th June, 1974 for defendant's evidence. On 2nd April, 1976 after recording the statement of one D.W. the case was adjourned to 15th April 1976 for the statement of the defendant only. On 3rd April, 1976 the defendant, however, applied for summoning Shri P.C. Soti, to disprove the sale certificate, on the basis of which, the plaintiff claimed his right, Shri P.C. Soti was said to be the attesting witness of the sale certificate. The trial Court ordered the summoning of Sh. P.C. Soti on payment of costs of Rs. 20/ - and with the direction that the witness is to be served on the responsibility of the applicant and Dasti summons was ordered to be given. The next date in the case was 15th of April, 1976. Although the defendant got the service effected upon P.C. Soti but be did not attend the Court on the date fixed. On 15th April, 1976 the learned trial Sub -Judge closed the evidence of the defendant and adjourned the case to 23rd April. 1976 for the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff Girdhari Lal has filed Civil Revision No. 952 of 1976 for setting aside the order dated 15th April, 1976 and to grant him time to examine his witness. The record of the case was sent for from the record it is apparent that on 2nd April, 1976 one D.W. was examined and the case was adjourned to 15th April, 1976 for the statement of the defendant only. It is further evident from the record that the defendant submitted an application on 3rd April, 1976 for summoning Sh. P.C. Soti. His application was accepted and the witness was ordered to be summoned on payment o. Rs. 20/ - as costs and the summons of the witness was ordered to be given Dasti to the defendant with the direction that the witness was to be served on the responsibility of the defendant. It is further evident from the record that the defendant delivered the summons to Sh P.C. Soti but inspite of that he did not appear in the Court. The impugned order shows that the defendant had undertaken to produce his evidence at his own responsibility. No doubt from the order dated 2nd April, 1976 it is apparent that the case was adjourned to 15th April, 1976 for the statement of the defendant only but on an application of the defendant, Sh. P.C. Soti was summoned on 3rd April, 1976 and the defendants was burdened with costs of Rs. 20/ -. If Sh. P.C. Soti had not attended the Court, he was required to be summoned as per rule 7 of Chapter V of the High Court Rules & Orders, Volume I. Thus the order closing the evidence of the defendant is not justifiable. Civil Revision No. 952 of 1975 is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that Sh. P.C. Soti, the witness of the defendant be summoned according to law The case be sent back to the trial Court as the case is fixed for 18th October, 1976.
(3.) CIVIL Revision No. 1085 of 1976 has not been pressed by the counsel for the petitioner and is, therefore, dismissed. The costs of these civil revisions will abide by the decision of the main case.;