C.R. No.4892 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.4892 of 2007 Date of Decision: 14.2.2008 Baldev Raj and others .....Petitioners Vs. Jarnail Singh and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J(Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is, to an order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, whereby the petitioners evidence in rebuttal was closed by order. Counsel for the petitiones submits that the learned trial Court, committed an error in closing the petitioners evidence by order. The petitioners had summoned PW Satnam Singh alongwith the relevant record The said witness was summoned through bailable warrant in a sum of Rs.5,000/- vide order dated 24.8.2007. On 3.9.2007, Satnam Singh appeared before the trial Court but could not be examined, as he had not brought the complete record. The learned trial Court, therefore, bound down Satnam Singh for 11.9.2007. On 11.9.2007, Satnam Singh did not appear before the trial Court but instead of passing orders to secure his presence, the petitioners evidence was closed by order. Counsel for the respondents states that the suit was filed in the C.R. No.4892 of 2007 2 year 1995 and has not concluded. As the petitioners are delaying the conclusion of the suit, no further opportunity should be granted to them. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impunged order. On 3.9.2007, the learned trial Court passed the following order :- “PW Satnam Singh is present for rebuttal evidence but he could not be examined as he has not brought the complete record with him. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff requested for date, which is granted. Now file be put up on 11.9.2007 for evidence of the plaintiff. Present PW is bound for 11.9.2007 and directed to bring the complete record on 11.9.2007 for recording his statement. No further adjournment would be granted on any costs.” On 11.9.2007, Satnam Singh did not appear. Instead of proceeding against Satnam Singh, for violation of its order dated 3.9.2007, the learned trial Court, closed the petitioners evidence, in rebuttal. The learned trial Court,therefore, erred in punishing the petitioners for the fault of an official witness. The trial Court should have proceeded to use the provisions of the C.P.C., that enable it to secure the presence of a witness, who is bound to appear for a date. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 11.9.2007 is set aside. The petitioner is granted one effective opportunity, to produce Satnam Singh, for recording of his statement. The C.R. No.4892 of 2007 3 learned trial Court shall secure the presence of Satnam Singh alongwith the entire record, in accordance with law. Liberty to lead their entire evidence, is granted subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. The learned trial Court shall ensure that the trial of the suit concludes, within a period of six months, from the next date of hearing. 14.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE