Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jaswinder Singh vs Shanti Devi And Others on 17 February, 2022
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No. 33
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CR No. 3/2022
CM No. 715/2022
Jaswinder Singh .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S. Surinder Singh, Advocate
Vs
Shanti Devi and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. S. P. Bakshi, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the court of learned Sub-Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as trial court) in suit titled, 'Jaswinder Singh vs. Shanti Devi and others' by virtue of which, right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed.
2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed the list of witnesses and had also deposited the diet expenses but the learned trial court did not issue any summon to the said witnesses and directed the petitioner to produce the witnesses on his own. It is also stated that as the petitioner was busy in the treatment of his father and he could not visit Jammu, as such, learned trial court closed the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 15.04.2017.
3. A perusal of the order dated 15.04.2017 reveals that despite having been granted last opportunity to lead evidence on 27.08.2016, the petitioner did not lead any evidence.
2 CR No. 3/2022
4. Mr. S. Surinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that only two witnesses namely Satpal Singh and Jagjeet Singh are required to be examined. He further submits that both these witnesses shall be produced by the petitioner before the trial court.
5. Mr. S. P. Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner has deliberately not produced the witnesses before the learned trial court. Mr. Bakshi further submits that the matter is pending for the evidence of the respondents and the respondents have filed the affidavits of two witnesses but they have not been cross examined as yet.
6. Heard and perused the order impugned.
7. A perusal of the order of the trial court reveals that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 15.04.2017. The petitioner could not produce the said witnesses despite having been granted last and final opportunity by the trial court. None of the witnesses of the respondents have been cross examined by the petitioner, as such, it cannot be said that the substantial part of the evidence of the defendant has been recorded by the learned trial court. As such, this Court in order to avoid any delay deems it proper to grant opportunity to the petitioner to produce both these witnesses.
8. At this stage, Mr. Bakshi submits that next date has been fixed for 22.03.2022 before the trial court for evidence. The first witness shall be produced by the petitioner on the said date before the trial court and the other witness shall be produced on the next date fixed by the learned trial court, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- out of which, Rs. 5000/- shall be deposited in the Advocates Welfare Fund and Rs. 5000/- shall be paid to the respondents. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 22.03.2022. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to produce 3 CR No. 3/2022 any witness other than two mentioned above except on the two dates mentioned above and thereafter, the petitioner shall cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents.
9. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 17.02.2022 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No