Petitioner seeking opportunity to cross-examine witness PW1 in a civil suit. Single judge allowed the prayer subject to payment of costs and application disposed.
Opportunity granted to cross-examine PW1 on 17.05.2019 or a date to be fixed by the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~54
ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.Sangam Kumar, Mr.Rajnish Kumar and Mr.Mithilesh Jaiswal, Advocates versus
HARYANA STATE KORFBALL ASSOCIATION & ORS
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Harsh Panwar, Advocate for R-1
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
O R D E R
% 10.05.2019 CM APPL No.22443-44/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application(s) stand disposed of. CM(M) 739/2019 & CM APPL No.22442/2019
Issue notice.
Counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the orders dated 26.04.2019 and 27.04.2019. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner an ex parte order was passed on 23.03.2019 and he moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order as also to provide the documents annexed with the plaint so as to enable him viz defendant No.3/petitioner to file his written statement. On 20.04.2019 the impugned order was passed whereby application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was allowed and ex parte order was set aside subject to cost of 10,000/- to the plaintiff and 25,000/- to be
paid on line to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Yet again an application dated 26.04.2019 was filed by the petitioner herein to enable him to file the written statement by asking the plaintiff to supply the documents. The said prayer was declined. The learned trial court even rejected the request for adjournment to cross-examine PW1. It is submitted though PW2 and PW3 have been crossexamined but the prayer to cross examine PW1 was declined on 26.04.2019. Admittedly there is no written statement on record of defendant No.3 and despite then the opportunity to cross PW1 is closed and hence this petition. The learned counsel for the respondent though objects to the prayer but says if the petition is allowed it ought to be made subject to costs. Thus, subject to payment of cost of 15,000/- to be paid to the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, an opportunity is granted to cross examine PW1 on one date either on 17.05.2019 or on a date to be fixed by the learned trial court on 17.05.2019.
The petition stands disposed of in terms of above. Pending applications are also disposed of. Order dasti .
Copy of this order be communicated forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information and compliance.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MAY 10, 2019 VLD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine witness PW1 after the trial court had closed that opportunity.
Ashok Kumar
Haryana State Korfball Association
Yogesh Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
