- (1.) M/s. Beri Ice Factory have filed this petition against the order of the learned Sub Judge, dated 15-2-1978, vide which the petitioner's evidence was closed. I have perused the order of the learned Sub Judge. Reasons for closure are quite cogent and sound because the petitioners were given many opportunities to produce their witnesses and last opportunity was given to the petitioners to produce entire evidence on 15-2-1978. But they failed to bring their entire evidence on that date. The only infirmity in the order is that after closing the evidence, the learned Sub-Judge should have proceeded under Clause (a) of Rule 3, of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is in the following terms : "Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default : (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith." Perusal of this provision shows that when any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act for which time has been allowed, the Court may if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith. The learned Sub Judge, as I have observed, has closed the evidence for good and sound reasons. It was open to Sub Judge to decide the case forthwith in the present case in accordance with the provision of Clause (a) as the parties were present on that day. But instead of deciding the suit forthwith he adjourned the case for arguments which could not be done in view of the provisions of clause (a) of rule 3. I have already taken this view in Civil Revision No. 1550 of 1978, Didar Singh etc. v. Smt. Hanso etc. The view I have taken is supported by the earlier judgments of this Court in Basant Kaur and another v. Smt. Gurdyalo,1975 PunLR 772 and Smt. Dakhri v. Munshi,1967 PunLR 149. This provision of the Civil Procedure Code is the same although the two cases referred to are earlier to the amendment of the Code. Only clause (b) is added by way of amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, but clause (a) remains the same. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the order of the learned Sub Judge is set aside. However, it is directed that the petitioners shall be given one more opportunity to produce their entire evidence and if the petitioner fail to produce, the Court will proceed in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be. The trial Court is further directed that the date for the production of the remaining witnesses shall not be more than three weeks because the suit is pending since 1976.;