IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1638 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 6th July, 2011 Ranjan Kashyap … Appellant Versus M/s Abhinav Enterprises and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Gaganpreet, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) This is the second appeal preferred by defendant to the suit. On 23rd September, 2002, while issuing notice of motion, this Court had passed the following order: “During the course of arguments, it was submitted before me by learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the defendant-appellant was closed by the learned trial Court, in haste. It was submitted that on 8.10.2001, various witnesses of the defendant, including Ranjan Kashyap, defendant-appellant, himself were present before the learned trial Court, but their evidence could not be recorded because a request was made on behalf of the counsel for the plaintiff that his senior counsel had gone to Delhi. Accordingly, the witnesses present were discharged and the case was adjourned to 12.11.2001, on which date, the case was adjourned to 28.11.2001 and again to 11.12.2001. It was submitted that on that date, two witnesses Regular Second Appeal No.1638 of 2002 (O&M) of the defendant were present and examined. However, the defendant himself could not come present and the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant by Court order, without examining the defendant himself. It was submitted that in fact on 11.12.2001, the Presiding Officer was on half day leave and the evidence of the defendant was closed by Court order in the first half of the day. It was further submitted that subsequently, the defendant filed an application for additional evidence for recording the statement of the defendant and one more witness, but the said application of the defendant was dismissed by the trial Court on 15.12.2001. It has been submitted that if one opportunity is given to the defendant, he would appear in the witness box and would produce his remaining witness namely Narsimhan on the said date, at his own responsibility, by taking dasti summons. I verified from the office as to whether Shri YS Rathore, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad (CJM), was on half day leave on 11.12.2001. It was brought to my notice that in fact Shri Rathore was on 1/3rd leave on 11.12.2001. Notice of motion to the respondents for 29.11.2002. Execution of the decree under Appeal shall remain stayed till further orders.” Counsel for the appellant has stated that the only substantial question of law which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether during the trial of his civil suit, fair play was ensured and adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellant-defendant to conclude his evidence. Learned counsel has stated that in case one opportunity is granted to the appellant-defendant, he will conclude his evidence by taking dasti summons. Counsel for the respondents has no objection thereto. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.1638 of 2002 (O&M) Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court, which shall afford one opportunity to the appellant-defendant to conclude his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility. On 17th August, 2011 the parties shall appear before the trial Court which shall conclude the proceedings and pass a judgment within a period of three months thereafter. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 6, 2011 rps 3