SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(P&H) 708

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bakshish Kaur, J.
Piara Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Vidhya Wati - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 6416 of 1999.
Decided On : 12 July, 2000

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dr. Balram Gupta, Advocate.

The duty of the court to enforce attendance of witnesses and take recourse to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code for compelling the attendance of recalcitrant witnesses.

Headnote:

Witness Non-Appearance - Civil Procedure Code - The court granted the petitioner one more opportunity to produce his witness before the Execution Court, subject to payment of costs, emphasizing that it is the duty of the court to enforce attendance of witnesses and take recourse to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code for compelling the attendance of recalcitrant witnesses.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner failed to conclude the production of evidence despite several opportunities, leading the learned Civil Judge to close the evidence mainly due to the delay in concluding the evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that it was not proper for the trial court to close the evidence of the petitioner due to the non-appearance of the witness, emphasizing the duty of the court to enforce attendance of witnesses and granting the petitioner one more opportunity to produce the witness.

Issues: Non-appearance of witness, closure of evidence, duty of the court to enforce attendance of witnesses

Ratio Decidendi: The duty of the court to enforce attendance of witnesses and take recourse to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code for compelling the attendance of recalcitrant witnesses.

Final Decision: The revision petition was disposed of with the court granting the petitioner one more opportunity to produce the witness before the Execution Court, subject to payment of costs.

JUDGMENT

Bakshish Kaur, J. - Whether a party can be made to suffer for the non-appearance of a witness in the Court after he has been summoned is the precise question under consideration ?

2. The petitioner was afforded several opportunities to produce his evidence but he failed to conclude it. As per the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) closed the evidence mainly on the ground that he had availed more than one and a half year time.

3. A bare perusal of the order would reveal that Gurnam Singh was summoned by the Court at the expense of the petitioner. He was duly served for the date fixed but without lawful excuse, he failed to attend.

4. In such circumstances, it was not proper for the trial Court to close the evidence of the petitioner. If a witness in spite of service or in spite of being bound down does not appear, it is for the Court to procure his presence by issuance of warrants but the Court could not take the extreme step of closing the evidence of the petitioner. It is the duty of the Court to enforce attendance of the witnesses where the party has done everything in that regard and the Court can take recourse to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for compelling the attendance of recalcitrant witnesses.

5. In view of the above, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to produce his witness before the Execution Court on the date to be fixed by the Court, subject to payment of Costs of Rs. 500/-. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Court on July 29, 2000.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar the said witness namely Gurnam Singh was summoned in his official capacity, being dealing clerk of the record in the Rehabilitation Department. In view of this, it is directed that if he is not the dealing clerk any more, then the concerned dealing clerk be summoned on the petitioners furnishing particulars of the witnesses his designation etc. along with the record which is required to be produced in the Court. The revision petition is disposed of in the terms indicated above.

Order accordingly.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top