1. ' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---For purposes of this judgment, reference to pleaded facts in detail would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs,39,32,900 as damages. The suit was resisted by filing a written statement. Issues were framed on 11-1-2001. The case was adjourned to 10-3-2001 when an application was filed under Order XVI Rule. 1, C.P.C. On behalf of respondent No,3. This application was allowed on 19-5- 2003 and the case was adjourned to 9-7-2001 for petitioners' evidence. On this date a witness was present but adjournment was sought and the case was adjourned to 19-9-2001. On this date some witnesses were present. Some were un-served and the case was adjourned to 14-10-2001 by a learned Duty Judge as the President Officer was absent. On 4-10-2001 two witnesses were present but the case was adjourned to 27-10-2001. On this date the witnesses present were cross- examined and the case was adjourned to 17-11-2001. On this date the witnesses were present but they have not brought the record. On 5-1-2002 the witnesses who were bound down were absent. A show-cause notice was issued to them while some other witnesses were found absent despite service. On 9-2-2002 the evidence of the petitioners was present but the learned counsel for the respondents sought adjournment. The witnesses were bound down but on 9-3-2002 they were absent show-cause notices issued to some witnesses as well as bailable warrants were issued. On 9-3-2002 a witness was present but the counsel for the respondents was absent. On 11-3-2002 the witness was present and his cross-examination was also recorded when some dispute arose' during cross-examination and the learned District Attorney left the Court. On this date, the question was dis-allowed and then the case was adjourned to 12-3-2002. On this date cross-examination of P.W.4 was recorded and an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Was filed by the respondent.
2. This application was decided on 27-5-2002. On 6-7-2002 the witnesses were found absent despite service and bailable warrants were issued. The same was position on 14-9-2002, 5-11-2002 and 19- 12-2002. On 29-1-2003 the death of the plaintiff was reported. The application for LRs was decided on 18-3-2003. On 16-4-2003 the evidence was present but learned counsel for the respondents was not available. Costs of Rs,200 was imposed upon them. The same was the position on 16-5- 2003. On 5-6-2003 and 5-7-2003 the evidence of the petitioners was absent. On 18-9-2003 the case was transferred to another Court. On 16-10-2003 a last opportunity was given for 11-11-2003.
3. On this date office note is there that the witnesses have been issued summons but not served.
4. Same was the position on 15-12-2003 and 20-1-2004, 28-2-2004, 5-4-2004, 12-5-2004, 7-6-2004, 27-7-2004 and 8-10-2004. On 7-12-2004 warrants of arrest were issued for ensuring the presence of the witnesses. Same was the position on 25-1-2005. On 15,3-2005 the evidence was absent. On 28-4-2005 office note is that the witnesses have been served but the case was adjourned. Same was the position on 16-6-2005. Thereafter the case was again transferred. On 3-9-2005 the case came up before the transferee Court but adjourned the case to 19-9-2005 calling upon the petitioners to get the witnesses served. The side note given by the office is that two of the witnesses have been served. However, on 19-9-2005 the case was adjourned again with the same warning.
5. On 27-10-2006 it is noted that the witnesses have been served but the witnesses are not present.
6. Bailable warrants were issued and at the same time a costs of Rs,500 was imposed on the petitioners. On 5-12-2005 the learned counsel for the respondents was not well. The warrants were repeated. Same was the position on 28-1-2006 and 27-3-2006. Ultimately, on 11-5-2006 the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is a matter of record that the petitioners have duly been complying with the order of the Court and depositing the diet money for the witnesses as also the process fee and that the absence of the witnesses is not at all attributable to them.
7. Leaned Addl. A.-G. And the respondents, present in person, have tried to support the impugned order.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. The entire proceedings have been stated in detail above. I do not find any fault attributable to the petitioners in the matter of non-appearance or presence of witnesses. Not on a single date, there is objection by the office that diet money or process fee has not been deposited. This being so, the petitioners having done their duty, they are not to be burdened any further and it was for the Court to ensure the presence of the witnesses.
8. The impugned order is found to be without jurisdiction and is accordingly set aside. The civil revision is accepted accordingly but without any orders as to costs.