D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) I am convinced that the tenant herein has deliberately avoided to produce his evidence and has thus prolonged the proceedings and in the end forced the Court to close his evidence almost in desperation but the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant herein asserts that the Court could not do so and cites Smt. Dakhri and others Vs. Munshi and others, 1967 PLR 149 followed in Basant Kaur and another Vs. Smt. Gurdyalo, 1975 PLR 772 wherein it has been held that once the Court closes the evidence of a party, then if he does not proceed to decide the case then and there and for one reason or the other adjourn the case for arguments and decision to another date then the concession should be given to the party to lead evidence on the next adjourned date.
(2.) In the present case no effort was made to produce the evidence on the adjourned date. Had the tenant produced his evidence on the adjourned date and then the Court had not allowed the evidence to be examined, then of course, there would have been deviation on the part of the trial Court from the ratio of these decisions. Otherwise, if the ratio of these judgments is to be construed to mean that once the Court adjourned a case for argument or for decision, then it cannot make an order of closing of the evidence of the defaulting party, the case can never be concluded and the Court can never legally close the evidence of the party because at every time whenever the case is adjourned, the defaulting party would press these judgments in his favour requiring setting aside of the order on the ground that the case was not decided forth with and order was, therefore, bad. In a given case, if the case is taken at the fag end of the day the, Court may not have the time to decide a case and a case may have to be adjourned for the next date or to a longer date convenient to the Court. In my opinion, as already observed, the correct ratio of these decisions is that if the defaulting party adduces evidence on the adjourned date, then the Court shall permit the said party to produce its witnesses. Such not being the case here, there is no merit in this petition and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.;