IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 51 of 2008. Date of Decision: 22.5.2008 Rachhpal Singh &ors. ..Petitioners. Versus. Madan Singh .. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This petition is directed against the order dated 8.2.2008 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Jawali has closed the evidence of the defendants. It is apparent from the perusal of the file that the learned trial Court proceeded in undue haste at the fag end of the trial since the suit was an old one and had been probably listed in the list of old targeted cases. The suit was filed on 2.6.1999. Written statement was filed on 21.12.1999. Thereafter amendment application etc., were filed and the miscellaneous applications were taken up and issues were framed on 26.10.2005 i.e. more than 6 years after - 2 - filing of the suit. The plaintiff evidence was completed only on 20.11.2007. Since the suit had become as a targeted suit, the court started to deal with the same with undue hurry. The matter was first fixed for the defendants’ evidence on 30.11.2007. Neither any evidence was present nor any process-fee was filed and the case was adjourned to 13.12.2007. Again, no process-fee was filed and the matter was adjourned to 27.12.2007 and dasti summons were ordered to be issued. On 27.12.2007, summons issued to the DWs were received back unserved. The court fixed the case for 31.12.2007 and also ordered that dasti summons be taken by the defendants. Giving extremely short dates of only two weeks or four days as in the last instance can be counter productive. It is very difficult to serve the witnesses in such a short time. First the process-fee is to be filed. Some time is taken by the administrative staff of the court to prepare and issue summons. Summons have to be issued through the process- serving agency and the court should give reasonable time so that the witnesses can be served. In this case, I find that the case was adjourned from 27.12.2007 to 31.12.2008 for evidence of the defendants. Therefore, the court wanted to record the evidence of the - 3 - defendants within four days in a suit which had been pending for more than 8 years. No party should be penalized for court’s delay which is not attributable to that party. I have perused the entire record and I find that various adjournments have been granted by the learned court below without any valid reason. Once the suit became an old one why should defendants alone suffer and be forced to produce its evidence in a short span of time. A perusal of the file also shows that previously the Presiding Judges were not showing any urgency and adjournments were being granted just for the mere asking. On a large number of dates, the suit was adjourned without any rhyme and reason. Now when the suit has become old, extreme urgency is being shown and the defendants have not been given a reasonable opportunity of producing their evidence. If one goes strictly by the record, six opportunities were given to the defendants for leading evidence. But as noted above, the first date was 30.11.2007, the next date was 13.12.2007, the third date was 27.12.2007 and the fourth date was 31.12.2007. Therefore, in a span of one month, four dates were given. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 4.2.2008. The learned Presiding Officer was on leave on this date and - 4 - the matter was fixed for proper orders on 12.2.2008. Then the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence on 19.2.2008. On the said date, the matter was adjourned to 28.2.2008 and since the evidence of the defendant was not present the same was closed. I am of the considered opinion that the defendants have not been dealt with unfairly in the present case. Even on 31.12.2007 when witnesses of the defendants were present, they were not examined nor were they bound down for the next date. On 31.12. 2007, when the affidavits of the witnesses were present and their affidavits were tendered as examination-in-chief, the court should have either got the witnesses cross-examined on the same date or should have bound down the witnesses for the next date. In fact, the perusal of the order shows that the Court time was over and hence the witnesses could not be examined and were discharged. If the case was an old targeted case to be take up on extremely urgent basis, it was the duty and responsibility of the learned Presiding Officer to ensure that this old case is taken up in the early part of the day so that the witnesses could be cross-examined on the same day. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that - 5 - the learned trial Judge acted harshly and in an illegal manner in closing the evidence of the defendants. Therefore, I allow the petition and permit the defendants to lead their evidence. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6th June, 2008. The registry is directed to send back the record of the trial Court so as to reach there well before the date fixed. The learned trial Court thereafter shall fix the case for recording the evidence of the defendants’ witnesses in the first fortnight of August, 2008. The defendants shall be entitled to take Dasti summons for the service of their witnesses. It shall be the responsibility of the defendants to serve their witnesses by taking Dasti summons from the Court. In case the witnesses are present, they shall be examined on the date fixed. In case they are not present, coercive steps shall be taken to ensure their presence. In case the defendants fail to serve the summons on their witnesses, it will be presumed that they do not want to examine the said witnesses. Thereafter the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the case as early as possible, in any event and not later than 31st December, 2008. May 22, 2008. (Deepak Gupta), J. s. - 6 -