***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) vide which learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, has closed the evidence of the petitioner.

2. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that petitioner had moved an application dated 17.12.2024 for depositing the diet money of the said witnesses, and pursuant thereto, the diet money was duly deposited on 03.01.2025. At the relevant time, the suit was pending at the stage of petitioner/plaintiff’s evidence and was fixed for recording evidence on 28.03.2025. Learned Civil Judge, vide the impugned order, abruptly closed the petitioner’s evidence. The evidence was closed without issuing summons to the witnesses for whom the diet money had already been deposited and without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to examine the said witnesses. Furthermore, no coercive process was initiated against the witnesses who had been duly served but failed to appear before the Court for the purpose of deposing. The action of the learned Trial Court in closing the evidence, without ensuring the presence of the witnesses or resorting to the available coercive measures, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and amounts to a denial of fair opportunity to lead evidence.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“No other PW is present. Learned counsel for the plaintiff again requested for adjournment. Heard. Perusal of the file shows that issues was framed way back on 13.12.2019 and since then the plaintiff has availed as many as twenty one effective opportunities i.e. on 07.02.2020, 13.02.2020, 17.02.2020, 24.04.2020, 12.04.2021, 24.05.2021, 04.10.2021, 23.11.2021, 08.03.2022, 08.07.2022, 12.09.2022, 02.03.2023, 08.05.2023, 14.08.2023, 19.10.2023, 20.02.2024, 09.07.2024, 07.10.2024, 17.12.2024, 24.07.2025, and for today i.e. 14.11.2025, no evidence of plaintiff was present. There seems to be justification in adjourning the case further for evidence of plaintiff and the same is hereby closed by Court order. Now, the case is adjourned to 12.02.2026, for evidence of defendants at own responsibility.”

4. A careful perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner submitted the application for deposit of diet money only after availing multiple opportunities to lead evidence since February 2020. The record further shows that the diet money was deposited nearly five years after the case was first posted for recording the petitioner’s evidence.

5. The learned Civil Judge ought to have exercised due care and diligence while considering the petitioner’s application for the deposit of diet money of the witnesses. Once the application was allowed, the Court was duty-bound to issue summons to the witnesses for whom the diet money had been deposited. In the event that the witnesses, despite being duly served, failed to appear before the Court, the learned Civil Judge was required to take appropriate steps to secure their attendance by resorting to coercive measures as provided under the law. The impugned order, by closing the petitioner’s evidence without issuing summons or initiating coercive process, reflects a clear non-observance of these mandatory judicial obligations.

6. A perusal of the paper-book clearly demonstrates that summons were issued to the witnesses, namely, the Record Keeper of Depu Holder, Gali No., Janakpur Colony, Kaithal, and the Record Keeper of SBI, Near Army Canteen, Jind Road, Kaithal, when the records were required by the Court for 28.03.2025. The summons were duly served and returned through Kamal Jeet, Depot Holder, and Sandeep Kaushik, Chief Manager, SBI Bank. Despite proper service, the witnesses failed to appear before the Court. In such circumstances, the learned Civil Judge was under a statutory and judicial obligation to take all necessary steps, including issuing coercive process, to secure the attendance of the witnesses. Instead, the learned Civil Judge closed the evidence of the petitioner, thereby causing serious prejudice and denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to lead evidence. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from material illegality, non-observance of mandatory procedural safeguards, and warrants interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Civil Judge is directed to secure the presence of the duly served witnesses for 28.03.2025 by issuing appropriate coercive process and to proceed with recording the petitioner’s evidence in accordance with law.

7. Disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

********