ORDER
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. The present petition arises out of the order dated 30.3.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 44 of 1990. By the aforesaid order the Civil Judge closed the evidence of the defendant and fixed the suit for final arguments. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the defendant as petitioner filed the present petition, on which I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. On 1.10.1997 the suit was directed to be listed for recording the entire evidence of the defendant on 3.11.1997. When the suit was listed on 3.11.97 on witness of the defendant was present nor any witness was served for the said date. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner/defendant that only one more witness was to be examined. On the basis of the aforesaid prayer the trial court fixed the suit for evidence of the defendant on 2.12.97. It was made clear therein that no further adjournment would be granted. On 2.12.97 the lawyers were on strike and accordingly the suit was directed to be listed on 13.1.98 for evidence of the defendant. On 13.1.98 the process issued to one employee of slum Department of Delhi Development Authority was returned unserved and therefore, trial court adjourned the suit for 10.12.98 for defendant’s evidence as a last opportunity. Process for the said witness was returned unserved even on the next date i.e.
10.2.98 and the court adjourned the matter for 9.3.98 for recording evidence of the defendant as last and final date. On 9.3.98 again the process was returned unserved with the report that the address of the witness was incorrectly written. The defendant sought for an adjournment and on that prayer the suit was adjourned to 30.3.98 for recording evidence of the defendant as a last and final date. On 30.3.98 the matter was again listed. On that date also the witness was neither present nor was served. Although time was granted to the defendant to take steps on 9.3.98 yet no steps were taken till 23.3.98 although the matter was fixed for recording evidence on 30.3.98 as a last and final opportunity.
3. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the defendant in the trial court that the steps were not taken earlier as the last address of the witness was not known. The said excuse was found by the trial court as lame excuse in as much as the defendant was earlier given about seven opportunities and inspite of that even the correct address of the witness could not be furnished by the defendant. The trial court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the defendant instead of taking steps on 9.3.98 or a date immediately succeeding took steps only on 23.3.98, thereby wasting around 15 days and that he could not properly explain why no steps were taken for summoning the witness from 9.3.98 to 23.3.1998. As the steps were taken late, the process was not received back. Considering, the aforesaid facts, request for adjournment was refused and the evidence of the defendant was closed and the
suit was directed to be listed for final arguments.
4. The aforesaid facts as disclosed would clearly prove and establish that the suit is being adjourned from time to time from 3.11.1997 for examining one witness from Delhi Development Authority. Inspite of several opportunities and repeated adjournments being granted the defendant has failed to get the summons served on the said witness. Negligence and laches also is apparent on the face of the record for instead of taking steps immediately on 9.3.1998 or a day immediately thereafter steps for summoning the witness were taken only on 23.3.1998 although the suit was to be listed
on 30.3.1998 knowing fully well that the summons could not be served on account of shortage of time. The suit was of the year 1990 and seven opportunities were granted to the defendant to bring the witnesses. Adjournments were also granted indicating specifically that the said adjournment is by way of last opportunity. Inspite of such caution given by the trial court no effective steps were taken by the defendant to get the summons served on the witness.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the exercise of discretion and jurisdiction by the trial court in passing the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.