Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Suri vs Trust Bagichi Nathan And Others on 7 February, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 968 of 2014
Date of Decision: 7.2.2014
Rajiv Suri ..... Petitioner
Versus
Trust Bagichi Nathan and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present:Mr.Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
...
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
This is defendant's revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.11.2013 (P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar closing his evidence by dismissing the application for summoning official witnesses. The brief facts are that the suit was filed on 10.10.2007. After many opportunities were availed by the plaintiff, the trial court closed its evidence on 12.9.2013. On 16.11.2013, the defendant made an application for summoning three official witnesses and one private witness over whom the defendant had no dominion. The trial court has passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 which is reproduced as under:-
"Today the case was fixed for Dws. Two Dws are present and cross-examined. Counsel for defendant filed an application for summoning the witnesses on the ground that all the witnesses to whom he wanted to summon are official witnesses. However, this court is of the view that adjournment sought by the defendant is not justified as the case is of the year 2007 and has already been declared Action Plan case by the Hon'ble High Court with directions to dispose off the same without any undue delay. Moreover, Hon'ble High Court has already started old cases reduction Khan Md. Firoz 2014.02.11 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity drive and it is directed by the Hon'ble High Court that all the of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CR No. 968 of 2014 :2: cases more than 5 years should be disposed off till 31.12.2013 and figure of old cases should be brought to nil. This court is of the further view that it was the duty of the defendant to provide list of witnesses when the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant but defendant failed to provide any list at that relevant time. Defendant has already availed ample opportunities but failed to conclude its evidence. Accordingly adjournment sought is not justified and evidence of the defendant is hereby closed by order. Now to come up on 28.11.2013 for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, if any and for arguments.
sd/-Harpreet Singh JMIC/20.11.2013"
Action Plans set by this Court on its administrative side are aimed at dispensing justice tempered with speedy disposal. Such Action Plans are not aimed to be obsessively followed by the trial court to reduce will nilly old cases in a drive of reduction of old pending cases initiated by this Court for good and useful purpose. The only reason assigned by the learned trial court to close evidence is based on administrative directions issued by this Court to the subordinate judiciary. The learned trial court ought to have weighed the interest of both the parties and the cause of justice. The plaintiff took almost six years to conclude its evidence on 12.9.2013. The defendant on his part though took 9 dates within a span of two months and was able to examine two witnesses during the said period, yet the adjournment sought by the defendant cannot be said to be justified, but closing further evidence is quite another matter. If one applies the test of counter balance, then this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. The three official witnesses and one private witness could have been examined by the Court over whom the defendant could have no control to produce. In case, they do not appear on summons issued, then appropriate steps could have been taken by the trial court to secure their presence. In view of the Khan Md. Firoz nature of the order proposed to be passed, I do not think that there would be 2014.02.11 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CR No. 968 of 2014 :3: any use in putting the plaintiff to notice since this Court is convinced that for the reason stated in the impugned order, it should not be allowed to stand.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 (P-2) is set aside. The application of summoning witnesses is allowed. The defendant would now be given opportunity to lead its evidence within the time frame to be set by the trial court in its judicious discretion. The trial court, however, would endeavour to decide the case as early as possible, without sacrificing the cause of justice.
With the above observations and directions, this revision petition stands disposed of.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 7.2. 2013 JUDGE MFK Khan Md. Firoz 2014.02.11 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh