JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
(1) This is a revision petition assailing the impugned order dated 28.10.1997, by which the evidence of the defendant/petitioner was closed. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit was instituted in the year 1974 and the respondent/plaintiff’s evidence got concluded only on 8.9.1997 and thereafter the petitioner/defendant’s evidence commenced only on 9.9.1997. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court was proceeding post haste in the matter and the petitioner was being denied adequate opportunity for examining the witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted an analysis of various dates from November, 1980 to put forward his submission that the petitioner could not be held to be responsible for the delay in the matter, which according to the petitioner was attributable significantly to the respondent also. The finding of the Trial Court in the impugned order holding that petitioner was responsible for delay of 23 years was assailed as contrary to record.
(2) Learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently refuted the petitioner’s allegation that the case had been delayed on account of the plaintiff/respondent. Counsel for the respondent submits that it was the dilatory tactics of the petitioner which have deprived the respondent/plaintiff of relied and the petitioner has been granted not less than 18 opportunities to lead his evidence. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court is only complying with the directions given by the Court earlier for a time bound disposal of the suit.
(3) Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel, perused the order sheet and pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that petitioner deserves further opportunity to lead evidence. The impugned order closing evidence is set aside. The number of opportunities provided to the petitioner are all within a period of one to one and a half months.
(4) Be that as it may, in my view, it is not necessary to go further into this controversy as to who is responsible for the delay as long as the litigation comes to an end and a decision is reached in the suit without any further undue delay. With this in mind, I had called upon the Counsel for the petitioner to take me through the list of witnesses that had been filed and whose examination was necessary keeping in mind the issues framed and the order dated 10.5.1997. I have also heard learned Counsel for the respondent on the question of witnesses to be examined. The learned Counsel with his usual persistence insisted that the petition deserves to be non-suited rather than being permitted to lead evidence. Counsel’s apprehension is that suit will be delayed in the pretext of summoning and re-summoning the witnesses. On going through the list of witnesses dated 8.11.1978 and hearing the Counsel for the parties, the undermentioned witnesses besides the petitioner himself are short listed. 7. Land and Development Officer, Land and Development office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 8. Secretary, Ndmc, Town Hall, New Delhi. 13. Registrar of Firms, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. 15. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, I.T.O. Building, New Delhi. 19. Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Jam Nagar, New Delhi. 23. M/s. Jai Hind Timber Depot, Original Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. As regards the witness appearing at S. No. 13, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he would not summon the witness subject to his being permitted to file a certified copy of the partnership deed of the firm and the same being read in evidence. Counsel for the respondent has no objection to it, subject to the certified copy of the partnership deed being filed within 15 days from today. As regards the witness appearing at S. No. 15, it would not be necessary to summon the witness or produce the record since the learned Counsel for the respondent states that respondent did not acquire the land or construct the property out of the funds of the firm M/s. Frontier Industries India. As regards the witness appearing at S. Nos. 19 and 23, Counsel for the respondent dispenses with the formal proof of the documents mentioned against S. Nos. 19 and 23, subject to the respondent’s contention that the petitioner had no funds whatsoever for raising the construction. Petitioner will summon the witnesses at S. Nos. 7 and 8 for 24th to 26th November, 1997. It is made clear that in case the summoned record is not available or is not produced by the witnesses on the said three dates, the evidence with regard to that witness would stand closed and the petitioner would not seek re-summoning of the same witnesses. The petitioner will also examine himself commencing from 1.12.1997 till his statement is recorded and cross-examination is over. The Trial Court would endeavour to hear arguments and pronounce judgment by 10.1.1998 as far as practicable. The date 7.11.1997, fixed before the Trial Court stands cancelled.
(5) With these directions and observations, petition stands disposed of.
