GURCHARAN KAUR Vs. TARLOK SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned trial Court vide which evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed by Court order.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 31.08.2017 reveals that the learned trial Court, while taking into account that issues were framed in the case on 07.04.2015 but plaintiff had failed to conclude her evidence despite on the last date of hearing having undertaken to conclude entire evidence, ordered closure of her evidence and adjourned the case to 27.09.2017 for evidence of the defendant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contends that although the case had been listed on 23 different dates, yet on 10 dates the matter had been adjourned on account of no fault of the plaintiff-petitioner i.e. on account of strikes, adjournment sought by defendant-respondent's counsel, learned Presiding Officer of the court being on leave etc. while on about 6/7 dates, application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was listed and the case had been adjourned for reply as well as evidence of plaintiff's witnesses and the plaintiff had actually got about six effective opportunities for leading evidence and had examined two witnesses who had also been cross-examined. Learned counsel relies upon zimni order dated 28.07.2017 to contend that PW-Kuldeep Singh was present on the said date but could not be examined as the District Bar Association, Rupnagar had decided to observe No Work in protest of imposition of professional tax as per call given by different Bar Associations whereupon said Kuldeep Singh was bound down for the next date of hearing i.e. 14.08.2017 as also for entire plaintiff's evidence at her own responsibility as last and final opportunity, failing which the plaintiff-petitioner was cautioned that the evidence of the plaintiff would be closed. Learned counsel further contends that summons were issued to plaintiff's witnesses on 29.07.2017 but as per note on the zimni order at page No. 71 of the paper book, summons issued to the witnesses had not been received back. Learned counsel contends that on 14.08.2017 after taking note of the fact that summons issued to plaintiff's witnesses (wrongly recorded as defendant's witnesses) had not been received back, fresh summons were issued to plaintiff's witnesses (wrongly recorded as defendant's witnesses) for 31.08.2017 through ordinary process along with dasti summons at own responsibility of plaintiff while observing that it would be the last and final opportunity failing which plaintiff's evidence would be closed. On the next date i.e. 31.08.2017, PW-Kuldeep Singh was present for cross-examination and was accordingly cross-examined by the empaneled local commissioner in terms of Order 18 Rule 4(2) of the CPC but since no other witness was present, learned trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff by Court order. Learned counsel contends that once summons had been issued to the plaintiff's witnesses and they had failed to put in appearance, then no fault could be attributed to the plaintiffpetitioner and in such circumstances it was the duty of the learned trial Court to have taken recourse to the provisions of Order 16 Rules 10 and 12 of the CPC. Order 16 Rules 10 and 12 of the CPC are reproduced hereunder:-