ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated July 17,1992, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for recording her statement on Commission and, also, closed her evidence.
(2.) TEJ Bhan filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar. During the pendency of the suit, on various dates the petitioner appeared alongwith her witnesses but her statement could not be recorded. The case was fixed for recording the statement of the defendant-petitioner on December 20, 1991 and on that day, an application under Order 26 rules 1 and 3 C. P. C. was moved with a request to get the statement of the petitioner recorded on commission. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application under Order 26 rules 1 and 3 C. P. C. and, also, closed the evidence of the petitioner. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. Order 26 rules 1 and 3 C. P. C. authorises the Court in any suit to issue a commission for the examination of the witnesses residing within the local limits of its jurisdiction, who is exempted under this Code from attending the Court or who is unable to attend the Court due to sickness. In the present case, the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the above categories and, therefore, the learned lower Court was justified in rejecting the application for issuing a commission to examine the petitioner. So far as the order closing the evidence of the defendant- petitioner is concerned, the petitioner appeared in the Court on various dates alongwith her witnesses, but her statement could not be recorded, not on account of the absence of the petitioner but on account of the fact that either the Court had no time to record the statement or the Presiding Officer was under transfer. On 26-4-90, the defendant-petitioner alongwith her witnesses Jaspal Singh, Pritam Singh and Lal Chand, was present in the Court, but her statement could not be recorded as the Presiding Officer was under transfer and the new incumbent had not yet taken the charge. The case was adjourned to 4-8-90. On that day, also, the petitioner was present but her statement could not be recorded and the case was adjourned to 11-9-90. On 11-9-90, the petitioner and her witnesses were present, but the Presiding Officer was on leave so the statement of the petitioner could not be recorded and the case was adjourned to 15-12-90. On 15-12-90, the petitioner and her witnesses were present, but the Presiding Officer was under transfer and, therefore, her statement could not be recorded and the case was fixed for 2-2-91. On that day, also, the petitioner was present, but her statement was not recorded and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 26-3-91. On 26-3-91, the petitioner and her witnesses were present but the Presiding Officer was on leave and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 10-7-91. On 10-7-91, the statement of DW 1 Jaspal Singh was recorded and the case was adjourned, for recording the statement of the petitioner, to 20-8-91. On 20-8-91, the petitioner and her witnesses were present, but the statements could not be recorded on account of the Lawyers' Strike and the case was adjourned to 25-9-91. On 25-9-91, she was not present as she was admitted in the hospital and, therefore, an opportunity was given to her and the case was fixed for recording the statement of the petitioner on 20-12-91, and on that day the application under order 26 rules 1 and 3 C. P. C. was dismissed. As is clear from the above facts that the evidence of the petitioner could not be recorded, not on account of her default but on account of various reasons, namely, either the court had no time or the Presiding Officer was on leave or under transfer. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge was not justified in closing the evidence of the defendant- petitioner. The order dated 17-7-91, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, closing the evidence of the petitioner, deserves to be quashed and set-aside and I think it proper to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to produce herself in the Witness-Box. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date, fixed in the case, is 27-8-1992. The petitioner may appear on 27-8-1992, before the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, and the learned Additional District Judge is directed to record her statement and her witnesses, if produced on that day. If the defendant-petitioner or her witnesses do not remain present in the trial Court on 27-8-92, then the learned Additional District Judge will be free to proceed to hear the arguments. With these observations, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is disposed of. . ;