Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 1548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PARMOD GOYAL, J.
Yogesh Ghai – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Om Parkash Rana - Respondent
CR-7359 of 2025
Decided On : 27-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Headnote
(B) Right to fair trial - Defendants cannot be penalized for the failure of witnesses to appear when all reasonable steps have been taken to present them (Paras 4, 5).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order closing the defendant’s evidence citing the failure of a duly served witness to appear, despite previous opportunities given to conclude the evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the evidence should not be closed due to the inability of a served witness to appear and ordered the lower Court to ensure the presence of that witness for examination.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Court can close evidence based on the failure of a duly served witness to appear and if the defendant's rights are violated by such closure.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that merely availing several opportunities does not allow the closure of evidence when efforts were made to present witnesses, emphasizing the Court's duty to facilitate the presentation of evidence fairly.
Result: Petition allowed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Hans, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to impugned order on evidence closure (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. court's duty to ensure witness presence (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT :
Parmod Goyal, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-6), vide which defendant’s evidence was closed.
2. Following order was passed by the Court on 22.09.2025 :-
“DW1 Yogesh Ghai is present and recorded. No other DW is present. Despite service of notice, PW Clerk O/o District Disaster Management Committee, Rohtak not appeared. Perusal of file shows that defendant has availed several opportunities including two last opportunities for concluding his evidence, but he failed to do the same. Further adjournment for the same purpose is not justified. Hence, defendant’s evidence is hereby closed by the Court order.
Now, case is adjourned to 29.10.2025 for rebuttal evidence, if any otherwise for arguments.”
3. Perusal of impugned order goes to show that one DW was present and examined and other DW i.e. Clerk from Office of District Disaster Management Committee, Rohtak stood duly served, but had failed to appear.
4. Once a witness is served and has failed to appear, it is the duty of the Court to ensure presence of such witness and for non-appearance of a served witness, party wanting to examine him cannot be faulted with. Evidence cannot be closed merely on the ground that he has already availed several opportunities. It is the duty of the Court to ensure presence of witness who has been duly served through the process of Court. The Court can close the evidence of witnesses only when plaintiffs or defendants are not taking interest in examining the witnesses or serving the witnesses. If plaintiffs or defendants are taking all steps within their might, they cannot be faulted with and merely availing number of opportunities could not take away their right to examine the witnesses. Accordingly, impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Learned Court of first instance shall ensure the presence of witness and examine the same in accordance with law.
5. It is made clear that evidence of all other witnesses be also concluded by defendant on the next date of hearing or along with examination of DW already summoned by him and no separate opportunity for concluding defence evidence shall be granted to him. Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms.
