JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed by the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the procedure followed by the court below in closing the plaintiff's evidence for the sole reason that witnesses 1 and 2, who were issued with non-bailable warrants, did not turn up to give evidence.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, in such circumstances, the court ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure before closing the evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), deals with the penalty for default if a person who has been duly summoned does not appear. The counsel also relies on the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Smt. Uchhabkanwar & Anr. vs Legal Representatives of Ramswaroop & Ors, (1995 KHC 2414), wherein the court was considering a similar circumstance in which the persons who were issued with non- bailable warrants did not turn up.
3. I have considered the arguments, and I am convinced that the court below ought not to have closed the
2
evidence of the petitioner merely for the reason that the persons summoned by the court did not turn up.
4. In the above circumstances, the original petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the court below to proceed further with steps under Section 32 of the CPC for ensuring attendance of the witnesses. For the above purpose, the court below shall consider Exts. P3, P6, and P7 applications submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the same at the earliest, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
SD/-
sab T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
3