Procedure, the trial Court proceeded to close the plain(cid:19)ffs’ evidence solely on the premise that mul(cid:19)ple opportuni(cid:19)es had already been granted.

4. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, this Court finds the impugned approach to be legally unsustainable. It is a se led principle of civil procedure that once a party has taken effec(cid:19)ve steps for summoning a witness, including deposit of process fee and diet money, and the witness is duly served, the onus shi$s to the Court to ensure the presence of such witness by resor(cid:19)ng to the statutory mechanisms provided under Order XVI CPC, including issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants, where warranted.

5. The closure of evidence is a dras(cid:19)c procedural consequence, which cannot be mechanically invoked, par(cid:19)cularly when the default is not a ributable to the li(cid:19)ga(cid:19)ng party but to a public official, whose a endance is amenable to the Court’s coercive authority. Penalising the party in such circumstances defeats the very object of a fair trial and undermines the principle that procedure is a handmaid of jus(cid:19)ce and not its mistress.

6. The trial Court, in the present case, failed to exercise the jurisdic(cid:19)on vested in it to compel the a endance of the duly served witness and instead adopted a course, which results in grave prejudice to the plain(cid:19)ffs’ substan(cid:19)ve rights. Such an order, therefore, suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdic(cid:19)on, warran(cid:19)ng interference by this Court under its supervisory powers.

7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-10) is set aside. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate coercive steps in accordance with law for securing the presence of the concerned Moharrir Patwari, presently working on the post, and therea$er afford the plain(cid:19)ffs an opportunity to examine the said witness.

8. The pe(cid:19)(cid:19)on stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondent and the ma er pertains only to regula(cid:19)on of procedure before the trial Court, this order is being passed without issuance of no(cid:19)ce to the opposite party.

January 12, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

Sarita JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No