Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 4162
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kiran Anand Lall, J.
Hari Chand
Versus
Pankaj
Civil Revision No. 5576 of 2006,
Decided On : OCTOBER 26, 2006
Failure to produce complete evidence and failure to file list of witnesses can lead to the court closing the evidence.
Headnote:
Adjournments - Evidence Production - The court closed the evidence of the petitioners after granting more than the required number of adjournments, as they could not produce their complete evidence for an exceptionally long period of about 7 years and did not file a list of witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The trial court closed the evidence of the petitioners after an exceptionally long period of about 7 years, during which they could not produce their complete evidence and did not file a list of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite granting more than the required number of adjournments, the petitioners could not complete their evidence, leading the court to close it.
Issues: Failure to produce complete evidence and failure to file list of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court closed the evidence after granting more than the required number of adjournments, as the petitioners could not complete their evidence and did not file a list of witnesses.
Final Decision: The court closed the evidence of the petitioners due to their failure to produce complete evidence and failure to file a list of witnesses.
Kiran Anand Lall, J.
1. A perusal of the impugned order vide which the trial court closed the evidence of the petitioners, shows that they could not produce their complete evidence, though the case remained pending for the purpose, for an exceptionally long period of about 7 years. They even did not file list of witnesses. It is further in the order that before closing evidence, court had called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to disclose the name of the witness who yet remained to be examined, but he failed to name any. The impugned order is self-contained and does not call for any interference. The court had granted more than the required number of adjournments, for the purpose. As, inspite of that, the petitioners could not complete their evidence, court was left with no option but to close it, by order.
