Judgment:
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5.8.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat. The learned trial Court passed the following order:-
'One DW present and recorded. No other DW is present. Defendant evidence closed by order of the Court after availing a number of opportunities. Now case to come up on 12.8.99 for rebuttal evidence if any and arguments.'
2. Upon notice, it was reported by the registry that the respondents have been served. Despite service nobody appeared on 5.5.2000 and in the interest of justice the case was adjourned to 11.5.2000. On 11.5.2000 also the case was called out twice but nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. Thus, arguments were heard in absence of the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the evidence of the plaintiff- Bank was closed on 26.5.1999 and the case was adjourned to 7.6.1999 for the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. Evidence could not be produced because of intervening period of vacations from 15.6.1999 to 15.7.1999 the witnesses could not be summoned. On 17.7.1999 an application for summoning the original accounts books of the bank pertaining to the loan of the defendant-petitioner was filed, however, the application was allowed subject to deposit of requisite money. There was suspension of work on 24.7.1999, therefore, the witnesses could not be examined and there was some confusion about the date then fixed i.e. 29.9.1999 or 30.7.1999.
4. The above conduct of the petitioners is certainly indicative that the petitioner has been negligent about pursuing his case. However, the negligence of the petitioner is not of the kind which would left the petitioner with such consequences. It was certainly the duty of the petitioner to summon the witnesses and as appears from the above facts, he had taken steps to summon the witnesses, but they could not be examined because of suspension of work. The law of procedure is mean to achieve the ends of justice and to do substantial justice with an intention to finally and completely determine the dispute between the parties. It cannot be said that the order of the Court is without jurisdiction. However, the Court could have passed an order which would give complete background of the case with reasons and it may have been more appropriate if the learned trial Court would have passed order of lessor gravity before passing the impugned order. Closing defence of a party is an order of a very serious nature and, therefore, normally should preceded by order of lessor gravity. In this regard reference can be made to Mool Chand v. Presiding Officer and Anr., (1999-2) 122 P. L. R. 514.
5. For the reasons afore-stated this petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order shall stand modified. The petitioner herein, defendant in the suit, shall be entitled to last final opportunity in spread over two dates for completing his entire evidence. The petitioner shall be at liberty to summon the witnesses through the process of Court, but presence of the witnesses before the Court would be at his risk and responsibility. No further adjournment would be allowed under any. circumstance except for paucity of time with the Court. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 1500/- costs being conditional. The petitioner would bring his evidence on the date now to be fixed by the learned trial Court.