Punit Kumar Singh Vs Harihar Singh

2 - Mina Singh W/o Harihar Singh, Aged About 59 Years, both by Caste Kshatriy And Are R/o Power House Namrakla Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate :

¶13

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari O rder on Board

¶14

14/11/2024

¶15

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2024.11.14 18:17:23 +0530

¶16

This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.10.2024, whereby, the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur District Sarguja in Civil Suit No.234-A/2021 filed under Section Section 25 of the Guardians

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

and Wards Act, closed the opportunity of producing evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶19

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the impugned order, the concerned trial Court has wrongly mentioned that as many as 14 opportunities have been granted to the plaintiff for producing evidence. For the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of the Court towards the order dated 26.4.2024, on which date, the plaintiff was present along with his witness. Similarly, the plaintiff has also produced his witness on 23.7.2024 and 30.8.2024, however, on such dates, at the request of counsel for the other side, the case was adjourned. Thereafter, on 10.10.2024, counsel for the plaintiff has filed an application for adjournment due to health issues of the plaintiff, which has been disallowed and on the subsequent date of hearing i.e. on 22.10.2024, the opportunity of the plaintiff to adduce evidence was closed. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that for fair adjudication of the matter, one more opportunity may be granted to advance the cause of justice.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition carefully.

¶21

Perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court would show that on several dates, adjournments were granted at the request of the other side and there is no fault on the part of the plaintiff. On 10.10.2024, an application was preferred by the plaintiff for adjournment on account of his health issue. However, the trial Court, on the grounds that the case was pending since 4.10.2021 and also that 14 opportunities have been granted to the plaintiff, closed the

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

opportunity of the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence without taking into account the fact that on several dates of hearing, time was granted at the request of the other side.

¶24

Considering all these aspects, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence within a period of one month, for fair adjudication of the case, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.2000/- before the concerned District Legal Services Authority and thereafter, the respondents shall also be granted time to adduce evidence. The concerned Court is directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously. The parties shall cooperate with the proceedings and further, the concerned Court shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall apprise the concerned Family Court about passing of this order.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Shyna

Punit Kumar Singh v. Harihar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punit Kumar Singh v. Harihar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Smt. Anita Upadhyay Vs Smt. Vilay Laxmi

Heeralal Verma Vs Veena Agrawal

Monika Baghel Vs Praveen Singh Baghel

SBI General Insurance Company Vs Smt Meena Shandilya