JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of an order dated 24.10.1994 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby evidence of the petitioners has been closed by him and the original plaintiff (respondent herein) has been directed to produce evidence on the application filed by the petitioners under 0.9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent – M/s Harbans Lal and Bros. filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of the amount allegedly due from the petitioners. An ex parte decree was passed in the said suit on 25.2.1987. Present petitioners filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte decree. After service of the notice of the application filed by the petitioners for setting aside the exparte decree issues were framed on 27.9.1991 and the case was posted for evidence of the petitioners. On 28.11.1991, which was the first date for evidence of the petitioners, an adjournment was sought on their behalf, A similar request was made on 23.1.1992. On 9.4.1992, the case could not be taken up because the lawyers were on strike. On 28.7.1992, the case was adjourned because evidence of the applicants was present. Similarly, on various other dates the case was adjourned because evidence of the applicants was not present. On 25.8.1993, it was stated that there was a possibility of compromise between the parties. Thereafter the case was fixed on various dates. Sometimes the Presiding Officer was on leave and sometimes the petitioners failed to adduce evidence. Only on 29.4.1994 statement of one witness was recorded. The next date of hearing was fixed as 21.5.1994. This date was changed on 20.5.1994 because the Presiding Officer was to remain on leave on 21.5.1994. On 2.6.1994, the next date fixed, evidence of the petitioners was not present. The case was adjourned to 22.7.1994. However, on that date the Presiding Officer was on special casual leave and the case was fixed for 17.8.1994 for evidence of the applicants-petitioners. This order was recorded by the Reader of the Court and on the next date evidence of the petitioners was closed.
3. Notice of this revision petition was given to the respondent, but nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. I have heard Shri Sarwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case.
5. There can be no denying that the learned trial Court did give may opportunities to the petitioners to adduce their evidence but it is also clear from the last two order sheets that the date has been changed from 21.5.1994 to 2.6.1994 on 20.5.1994, because the Presiding Officer was on special casual leave. The Reader of the Court fixed the date of evidence. This was wholly impermissible in law. The date for evidence could be fixed only by the Court and not by the Court Reader. The petitioners could not have been penalised for their failure to produce evidence on the next date of hearing. The order passed by the learned trial Court for closure of evidence would cause immense prejudice to the petitioners. In my considered view, ends of justice warrant giving of one more opportunity to the petitioners for producing evidence.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Order dated 17.8.1994 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, is set aside. The petitioners are directed to produce their entire evidence on 16.1.1995. If on that day evidence is not produced by the petitioners, the learned trial Court shall proceed to record evidence of the respondent and decide the matter in accordance with law.