AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Iqbal Singh, J.—Vide order dated 12.8.1998, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar, closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner and adjourned the case to next date i.e. 19.8.1998, for hearing arguments. This has led to the filing of the present revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner.
The short ground on which this revision petition deserves to be allowed is that the trial Court; after refusing to grant further adjournment to the plaintiff to lead evidence, should have decided the cases forthwith instead of adjourning the same for arguments. It is settled principle of law that granting or refusing to grant adjournment is within discretion of Court. However, if the case is not decided forthwith, evidence of the party at fault cannot be closed. The very purpose of the procedure laid down in Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') will be defeated if the case is not decided forthwith. The provisions of Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code read as under:-
"3. Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc. - Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other at necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default,-
(a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or
(b)xxx xxx"
A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code by the trial Court. If the case was being proceeded with under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code and not decided forthwith by the trial Court, the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner could not be closed and opportunity to it (plaintiff-petitioner) to produce witnesses on the next date of hearing could not be denied. The order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the trial Court, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The plaintiff-petitioner is granted one opportunity to lead evidence on the next date to be fixed by the trial Court. The petitioner will bring the entire evidence at its own responsibility. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.3.1999.
A copy of this order be given dasti on payment of requisite charges.