Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 717
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.S.Khehar, J.
Nihala
Versus
Man Singh
Civil Revision No. 3882 of 1998,
Decided On : JULY 24, 1999
The court has the discretion to allow further opportunities for evidence in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances and the impact on the parties involved.
Headnote:
Opportunity - Evidence - The court allowed the petitioner-defendant one further opportunity to lead his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-defendant was allowed one last opportunity to lead evidence, but no witness appeared on the specified date. The trial court closed the defense of the petitioner-defendant, leading to a petition for further opportunity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner-defendant was not wholly to blame for not producing the witness and, in the interest of justice, allowed one further opportunity for evidence, subject to payment of costs to compensate the respondent-plaintiff for unnecessary hardship.
Issues: The main issue was the failure of the petitioner-defendant to produce evidence as per the earlier opportunity granted, leading to the closure of the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the circumstances surrounding the failure to produce the witness and the interest of justice, leading to the allowance of one further opportunity for evidence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, subject to the payment of costs, and the trial court was directed to ensure the service of summons for the witness, allowing one further opportunity for evidence.
J.S.Khehar, J.
1. Vide order dated 23.5.1998, the petitioner-defendant was allowed one last opportunity to lead his evidence by adjourning the case to 24.7.1998. On 24.7.1998, no witness appeared on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. The learned Trial Court relying heavily on the fact that the petitioner-defendant was afforded one last opportunity to conclude his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, ordered the defence of the petitioner-defendant to be closed, since no witness appeared on 24.7.1998. It is undoubtedly true that the petitioner-defendant had expressly undertaken to lead evidence at his own risk and responsibility. However, a perusal of the order shows that the witness who remains to be examined i.e. Giani Ram is the Area Patwari. The deposition of the aforesaid witness obviously is based on official record. The petitioner-defendant could not have persuaded the said Giani Ram to appear on his behalf. It is in these circumstances that diet money and process fee was duly deposited by the petitioner-defendant so as to summon the said witness. The summons issued to Shri Giani Ram, Area Patwari, could not be served upon him as per the report of the Process Server. In the aforesaid, view of the matter the petitioner-defendant is not wholly blame-worthy for not producing the said Giani Ram.p-
2. For the reasons recorded above and in the interest of justice, it is considered appropriate to allow one further opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility. The trial Court will ensure the service of the summons of appearance on the said Giani Ram, Area Patwari, for the date fixed for his evidence.
3. Since the inability of the petitioner-defendant to lead his evidence in terms of his undertaking recorded on 23.5.1998, it is undoubtedly true that the respondent-plaintiff had been put to unnecessary hardship. He is; therefore, entitled to be duly compensated. For the reasons recorded, it is considered appropriate to allow this petition subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The payment of the aforesaid costs shall be a pre-requisite before the trial Court allows one further opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead his evidence. R.M.S. Petition allowed.
