CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. This civil revision has been directed against orders dated 24.12.2010 and 18.10.2011 passed by learned Trial Court.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The suit for declaration was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. The defendants filed written statement. Issues were framed on 23.12.2006 and the case was fixed for evidence of the respective parties. The plaintiffs completed their evidence and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants. Vide order dated 2.9.2010, the case was fixed for 3.9.2010 for complete evidence of the defendants. On 3.9.2010, only defendant No. 2 put appearance but he could not produce any witness and the case was fixed for-4.9.2010. On 4.9.2010, defendant No. 2 appeared in the Court who was directed to bring his evidence at 12.00 noon but no one entered appearance as was directed by the Court, as such, the learned Trial Court under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Closed the remaining evidence of defendant No. 2.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed application under Order XVIII, Rule 2, Explanation I read with Section 151, C.P.C. Before the learned Trial Court wherein the petitioners raised the point that the right of defendant No. 2 to produce evidence was closed and the rest of the defendants be provided opportunity to produce their evidence. However, the learned Court vide order dated 18.10.2010 turn down the said application on the ground that evidence of all the defendants had already been struck off under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Vide order dated 4.9.2010. The petitioners submitted another application which also met with the same fate vide order dated 24.12.2010.
5. From bare perusal of the order dated 4.9.2010, it is evident that earlier some evidence of defendant No. 2 was recorded, so the learned Trial Court for non-production of further evidence closed the right of defendant No. 2 to the extent of remaining evidence by exercising powers under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. It has specifically been mentioned at the bottom of the said order that "In this situation, the 'Court is constrained to proceed in this case accordingly and the remaining evidence of defendant is closed". In the circumstances, I am not inclined to take into consideration the argument of learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that inadvertently the word 's' with the word `defendant' was missed, as such, the word 'defendant' be treated as 'defendants'. Since there is no ambiguity in the order dated 4.9.2010 which is very clear, I allow this civil revision and remand the case to the learned Trial Court with the direction to complete the evidence of the parties within a fortnight positively after providing maximum two opportunities to defendants Nos. 2-a, 2-b and 2- c. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 6.9.201.