C.R. No.3807 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3807 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.07.2009 Devender Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Rajinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mor, Advocate for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.03.2009 closing the evidence of the plaintiff. It is not disputed that only one witness namely Hari Om Munshi remained to be examined. It is also not disputed that bailable warrants of Hari Om Munshi were issued but the same could not be served. Even in these circumstances, the learned trial court closed the evidence on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed the list of reliance within 15 days after the framing of issues and the bailable warrants were issued only to assist him and that the petitioner could not claim that bailable warrants be issued as a matter of right. In my opinion, these may or may not have been good reasons for not issuing the bailable warrants. However, once bailable warrants were C.R. No.3807 of 2009 -2- issued it becomes a larger matter because issue then arises as to whether the direction of a Court can be violated with such impunity. In the case of Rakesh Mohanta v. Maj. Gen. Amrik Singh reported as 1995(2) Civil Court Cases 205 (P&H) this Court held as follows:- “The trial court has clearly erred in this case in closing the evidence of the petitioner. Petitioner had summoned Anil Kakria by taking Dasti process and if he did not appear despite service, it was for the Court to ensure his presence by taking coercive measures.” Similar is the decision of another case in Vijay Pal v. Daya Ram reported as 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 55 (P&H) where this Court held as follows:- “In case the witnesses do not appear despite service then the court is required to proceed against the witnesses and take necessary action under Order 16 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This aspect of the case was totally ignored by the trial Court. Thus, a party cannot be deprived of his right to conduct the case in a fair and proper manner nor he can be penalised for non- appearance of the witnesses because he is at the mercy of the Court who had issued the summons upon the witnesses.” In the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 09.03.2009 is set aside and the trial court is directed to take coercive measures to ensure presence of the witnesses. C.R. No.3807 of 2009 -3- As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 27, 2009 JUDGE ashish