Honble SINGH, J.– Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners.

(2). In the instant case, the petition is admitted.

(3). A short question arising in this petition is whether the learned lower court was justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff when some of the witnesses against whom summons and warrants had been issued, did not appear in the court on the date of hearing fixed for their evidence.

(4). A perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheet dated 17.1.1998 shows that the suit was listed on 12.7.1997 for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 12.7.1997, the statement of Surendra Nath DW-1 remained in-complete as the original agree- ment was not available. On 31.7.1997, the case was adjournment at the instance of the counsel for the plaintiff. On 14.8.1997, the statement of the plaintiff could not be completed because the court time was over. On 30.8.1997, adjournment was sought on behalf of the plaintiff and the same was granted and the case was listed on 6.9.1997. On 6.9.1997, Surendra Nath DW-1 was examined but his statement re- mained in-complete. On the same day, the statement of DW-2 was recorded. On 10.9.199

Click Here to Read the rest of this document