M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.)THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 23.1.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nakodar closing the evidence of the defendant-petitioner by order. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge reads as under :-
"No defendant evidence is present. From the perusal of the file it is transpired that plaintiff has closed its evidence dt. 6.1.1996 and since then the case is lingering on for evidence of the defendant. In between some misc. application was filed by the counsel for the defendant and the same was disposed of in the year 1998 and case was again fixed for defendant evidence. Thereafter the defendant did not examine even a single witness. Again on 14.9.2001 the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant but on 14.9.2001 no DW was present and on request case was adjourned to 3.10.2001 for evidence of the defendant. Thereafter eight opportunities were given to the defendant to conclude its evidence but defendant did not take care of the same. Today again no defendant wintess is present and the counsel for defendant made request for adjournment which is without any cause or reason and the same is strongly opposed by the opposite counsel and evidence of the defendant is closed by order. Now case is adjourned to 10.2.2003 for evidence in rebuttal if any and arguments."

(2.)MR . R.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the Civil Judge has committed a grave error in law and facts by observing that eight opportunities were given to the defendant-petitioner to conclude his evidence. According to the learned counsel only four opportunities were given in accordance with the interlocutory orders reproduced by the defendant-petitioner in the grounds of revision. The learned counsel has also pointed out that one opportunity may be granted to the defendant-petitioner after imposition of a reasonable amount of costs.
After hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any valid ground to interfere in the impugned order because a perusal of the interlocutory orders dated 14.9.2001, 3.10.2001, 5.11.2001, 29.1.2002, 15.2.2002, 28.8.2002, 12.11.2002, 18.12.2002 and 23.1.2003 shows that eight opportunities were granted to the defendant-petitioner to produce the evidence but he failed to conclude his evidence. The argument of the learned counsel that opportunities given were lost because of the strike of the lawyers has not impressed me because a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another, 2003(1) S.C.T. 382 : (2003) 2 SCC 45 has now laid down that strike by the lawyers is no ground to grant an adjournment to a litigant. The observations of their Lordships in this regard read as under :-

"Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before them and cannot adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Association expressing want of confidence in judicial officers, it would amount to scandalising the courts to undermine its authority and thereby the advocate will have committed contempt of court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh case, (1991) 1 SCC 37 that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer's duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Ramon Services v. Subhash Kapoor case, 2001(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 324 : (2001)1 SCC 118 that advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call."

(3.)MOREOVER , the order has been passed on 23.1.2003 and the next date fixed before the Civil Judge was 10.2.2003. The instant revision petition has been filed on 8.4.2003 which further shows the casual attitude adopted by the defendant-petitioner. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.