Roshan Lal vs Ram Kumar

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 3.7.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for closing the evidence of the defendant/respondent has been dismissed and the application filed by defendant has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to produce the original bahis in the Court. Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent has approached this Court twice and vide order dated 25.4.2013 he was granted one month's time to conclude his entire evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent is misusing the relief granted by this Court. He has not led the evidence within the stipulated period as directed by this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record as well as the impugned order.

Reading of impugned order makes it clear that certified copy of the order dated 25.4.2013 passed by this Court was received by the trial court on 17.5.2013. One month's period is to be counted from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, which was expiring on 16.6.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that one month time has expired from the date of knowledge of order passed by this Court.

I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Trial court can only proceed after seeing the order. Trial court received the certified copy of the order dated 25.4.2013 on 17.5.2013. From that date, period for adducing evidence was upto 16.6.2013. 16.6.2013 was a vacation day and the court opened on 1.7.2013. Therefore, learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that one month's period had not expired.

It is settled principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard. Merely on the ground of technicalities, justice cannot be throttled. However, an effective opportunity is required to be given to parties to lead their respective evidence in the interest of justice.

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Dismissed.