... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.286 OF 2009 Mrs. Josephine Rodrigues, major of age, widow of late Diago Rodrigues, r/o House No.73, Bamansai, Sanguem, Goa. … Petitioner v e r s u s 1. Mr. Minguel Carvalho, major of age, 2. Mrs. Filo M. Carvalho, major of age, Both residents of Bamansai, Sanguem, Goa. … Respondent Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE: 2nd MAY, 2009. ORAL ORDER: The trial of the plaintiff's suit is in ... 2 ... progress. The plaintiff has been examined and cross examined. The plaintiff sought to produce further evidence. That is oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff issued witness summons upon the Municipal Officer to produce documents. He was the witness to produce documents alone. The documents were not produced. The plaintiff did not pursue any application to further call upon the witness to have the documents produced. The notings on the roznama show that several officers came to the Court without the documents to be produced. The relevant officer was stated to be absent from duty. It is for the plaintiff, who is in the carriage of proceedings, to exercise his control over the witness from whom he sought to have the documents that he required. It may be mentioned that the documents may be produced through any staff of the Municipal Council and not only through the Chief Officer, who was summoned to produce the documents. ... 3 ... The learned Judge has granted sufficient amount of adjournments to the plaintiff on that count. 2. The plaintiff thereafter sought to produce other witnesses as his further evidence. One is stated to be the landlord and the other is stated to be an expert. Instead of producing the witness along with his affidavit-in-examination-in-chief, the plaintiff made applications for being granted leave to produce these witnesses. Such procedure is not even contemplated in the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff is required to give a list of witnesses to the Court after the issues are framed. The plaintiff is required to tender the affidavits-in-examination- in-chief, of his witnesses either together or at least one by one. These affidavits are to be received in evidence upon being tendered under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff did not follow this procedure. ... 4 ... The plaintiff only made applications. That is a completely erroneous procedure. It only amounts to waste of judicial time. The learned Judge has closed the plaintiff's evidence after giving the plaintiff sufficient number of adjournments under Order 17 of the Procedure Code. 3. The learned Judge has dealt with the plaintiff as well as the defendants similarly. The learned Judge has given both the parties sufficient time for leading their evidence. The suit has been pending for more than five years. 4. The plaintiff has annexed part of the roznama. The roznama after 18.02.2009 is not shown to this Court. Hence this Court does not know what has transpired between 18.02.2009 when the suit was adjourned until now. The suit is not yet disposed off. ... 5 ... 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that the suit is kept on04.05.2009 for arguments. It would be for the plaintiff to produce his evidence such that the suit may proceed for receiving such evidence by the Court. The Court may then consider receiving such evidence. The plaintiff has challenged orders dated 31.10.2008 and 18.02.2009 refusing the plaintiff's application for examining a new witness and adjourning the suit. The Court has to consider the evidence before it and pass all discretionary orders. The discretion exercised by the Court is for a disciplined approach for hearing of suits. After giving the plaintiff enough opportunity, if the plaintiff does not produce evidence, the Court is entitled to close the evidence of the parties. The impugned orders cannot be faulted. The Trial Court shall exercise its discretion. ... 6 ... 6. The only direction that can be passed is that if on the next date of hearing i.e. on 04.05.2009, the plaintiff actually produces or gets produced oral or documentary evidence by affidavit- in-examination-in-chief of any further witness or by way of having the officer who is called upon to produce the document actually produce the document in the Court, the Court shall consider such evidence and proceed as per law in respect of both the plaintiff as well as the defendants. 7. Writ petition is disposed off accordingly. 8. The Section Officer, Record Section of this Court shall issue a copy of this order authenticated by him. All concerned shall act on such copy. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. ... 7 ... lh/.