Delhi Development Authority vs Aryan Di Hatti
1987 Latest Caselaw 53 Del

Citation : 1987 Latest Caselaw 53 Del
Judgement Date : 22 January, 1987

Delhi High Court

Delhi Development Authority vs Aryan Di Hatti on 22 January, 1987

Equivalent citations: 31 (1987) DLT 213

Author: N Goswamy

Bench: N Goswamy

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) This revision petition by the defendant is directed against the order dated 9-8-85 passed by the learned Trial Judge whereby the evidence of defendant was closed.

(2) I have looked into the record and I find that the defendant has availed of four opportunities and inspite of that neither any witness was summoned nor any witness was present. In this situation normally no error can be found with the impugned order. It is clear beyond doubt that the defendant has been highly negligent in prosecuting the case.

(3) Mr. Talwar has, however, brought to my notice the peculiar features of the suit which in my opinion may be prejudicial to the public as a whole if the defendant is not allowed to lead evidence. After considering the entire circumstances of the case, I allow this petition and direct that one more opportunity should be given to the defendant to produce its entire evidence at its own responsibility. Mr. Talwar states that the petitioner/defendant will not ask for a second opportunity and will close its case on one occasion.

(4) Notice of this petition was issued to the plaintiff/respondent. At one stage appearance was put in and a reply to the show cause was also filed but thereafter nobody have been appearing inspite of a further notice having been issued. Consequently, I have not bad the advantage of hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

(5) The revision petition is. therefore, allowed in terms stated above and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Judge on 2nd March, 1987. The learned Trial Judge will grant one opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to produce its evidence at its own responsibility which will be recorded subject to payment of Rs. 500.00 as costs.

(6) In case the plaintiff is not present, the learned Trial Judge will issue an actual date notice for the next date. In the circumstances of this case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.

--- *** ---