Ramesh Kumar Vs Kalawati

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 23.9.2015, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. V, Shimla, in Civil Suit No. 155-1 of 2014/09, titled as, ‘Kalawati versus Ramesh Kumar’,

¶12

2

¶13

The main grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that on 19.8.2015 has passed the following order:

¶14

“No Pws are present today. Time prayed. Allowed. Let PWs be produced on self responsibility for 23.9.2015. It is made clear that in case the PWs are not produced on the date fixed, the evidence of the plaintiff shall be deemed to be closed by the order of the Court.”

¶15

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite order dated 19.8.2015, the learned trial Court, instead of closing the evidence, has given further opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence, that too, on taking steps within five days. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that issues in this case were framed in the year 2012 and after availing number of opportunities, the plaintiff could not examine her witnesses.

¶16

On the basis of above facts, Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that approach of learned trial Court in granting another opportunity, despite order dated 19.8.2015, is against the settled preposition of

¶17

3

¶18

law, according to which, the Court cannot review its own order.

¶19

Per contra, it has been argued by learned

¶20

counsel for the respondent that steps have been taken for 19.8.2015, but summons could not be issued, as it

¶21

has been reported by the concerned Ahlmad that although, PF has been filed, but case is fixed for recording the evidence of plaintiffs’ witnesses, on selfresponsibility.

¶22

It has also been argued by learned

¶23

counsel for the respondent that on 23.9.2015, the witnesses were present, but given up.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The procedural law is made for

¶26

advancement of justice. The matters before the Civil Court are to be decided on merits and not on the basis

¶27

of technicalities. Even otherwise, the Civil Court has inherent powers to review its own order. Moreover, by way of order dated 19.8.2015, it has been decided

¶28

by the Court that evidence of the plaintiff shall be

¶29

4

¶30

deemed to have been closed, and the same does not preclude the Civil Court from further adjourning the case, for recording the statements of the parties.

¶31

Considering all these facts, the present petition is disposed of. However, learned trial Court is directed only to give two opportunities, that too, within a period of one month.

¶32

The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22.11.2024, at 10:00 a.m. The learned trial Court is at liberty to even prepone the date for recording the statements of plaintiffs’ witnesses. Steps be taken within three days, from the date of appearance, before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the witnesses be summoned for a shorter period, not more than 15 days.

¶33

The learned trial Court is further directed to

¶34

take even coercive steps, in case, despite service of summons, the witness will not appear before the learned trial Court. It is made clear that not more

¶35

5

¶36

than two opportunities shall be granted to the plaintiff

¶37

to lead his entire evidence.

¶38