The Court emphasized the responsibility of the Court to ensure just and effective adjudication, even by allowing reopening of evidence in certain cases, on specific terms and conditions.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition challenges two impugned orders dated 10th april, 2019 and 2nd July, 2019 passed by the Trial Court in CS No.55486/16 titled anukaran Malik v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

3. The background of this matter, is that the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter 'Plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery against the Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter 'Defendant') in 2013, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,80,000/- along with interest. The said suit was at the stage of trial and the Defendant, which is an NBFC, sought to lead evidence of a witness, i.e., DW-2-Ms. Geetika Vaish. Though her evidence by way of an affidavit was filed, DW-2 was not present before the Trial Court for tendering of the affidavit and for cross examination. an adjournment was sought on the ground that she had to urgently leave for Mumbai due to official work. This adjournment was refused and the evidence of the Defendant was closed vide order dated 10th april, 2019. an application was thereafter preferred by the Defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, seeking reopening of evidence of DW-2 and recall of the said order dated 10th april, 2019, which was also rejected. In effect therefore, the evidence of the Defendant stood closed. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. Karnail Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant, submits that only one witness is to be produced by the Defendant before the Trial Court, therefore an opportunity may be granted to the Defendant to produce DW-2, on the terms and conditions that this Court deems fit. He submits that the reason for non-production of DW2 was genuine as she had to travel for official work to Mumbai.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Panwar, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that since inception of the suit, the conduct of the Defendant has been to delay the trial of the suit and adjudication thereof. Ld. counsel has taken the Court through the relevant order sheets of the Trial Court to argue that the Defendant's conduct does not deserve any indulgence and costs have been repeatedly imposed on it for such conduct. Ld. counsel further submits that the revision is not maintainable under Section 115 CPC against an order closing evidence, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Developers, (2003) aIR SCW 2445. He further urges that two orders being challenged in one revision petition is also not permissible. The application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was also beyond limitation, having been filed beyond the 30 day period. Hence, he submits that on maintainability and on merits, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has primarily perused the relevant order sheets in the suit, since inception. This shows that undoubtedly, the Defendant has been repeatedly taking adjournments. The suit was filed in 2013 and issues were framed by the Trial Court way back on 18th September, 2015 and since then, the Defendant has delayed the cross-examination of the Plaintiff's witness, made incorrect submissions concerning DW-1, the Defendant was also proceeded against ex parte, costs were imposed on the Defendant, the Defendant's opportunity to cross-examine was also closed, and finally the Defendant's evidence has been closed. The order sheet is replete with orders wherein either the Defendant is not appearing or a proxy counsel is appearing who is unable to conduct the proceedings and seeks adjournments. a perusal of the order dated 16th October, 2018 also shows that even the list of witnesses was only filed in 2019, upon the Trial Court directing the Defendant to do so. In respect of non-production of DW-2 in this background of the Defendant's conduct, the Trial Court, has finally, without having any other option, directed the closing of the Defendant's evidence.

7. Even in the present petition, since beginning, it is noticed that after the