CMPMO challenged an order closing defendant petitioners' evidence in a civil suit due to witness non-production despite granted adjournment. This court held the order oppressive and quashed it, directing a new evidence date.
Impugned order quashed; direction to trial Judge to fix new date for evidence recording; parties to appear on 24.6.2017.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 111 of 2017.
Date of decision: May 31, 2017.
Avinash Kumar & ors. …...Petitioners. Versus Arvind Kumar. …..Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the petitioners | : Mr. |
Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Mr. |
Ajay Sharma, Advocate. |
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Challenge herein is to the order passed on 18th January, 2017 in Civil Suit No. 106 of 2008, whereby the defendants’ evidence has been ordered to be closed. As a matter of fact, the petitioners are defendants in the trial Court. As per order dated 9.8.2016 Annexure P-3, last and final opportunity was granted to them for producing their evidence on 26.11.2016. However, on 26.11.2016 learned trial Judge was not present as he had to appear in departmental examination on that day. Therefore, the witnesses as per the report in the
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
2
margin of zimni order dated 9.8.2016 were present. They were duly served as is apparent from the notices Annexure P-2 which were issued to them. Anyhow, in the absence of learned trial Judge their statements could not be recorded on that day. The officer of the Court (perhaps Reader) has given the date as 18.1.2017 for effective hearing meaning thereby that the petitioners-defendants were required to take steps for production of their evidence on the date so fixed i.e. 18.1.2017. Since steps were not taken nor DWs present, therefore, learned trial Judge has ordered to close the defendants’ evidence.
3
forwarded to learned trial Judge for compliance.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
May 31, 2017, (vs)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order closing the defendants' evidence should be quashed to prevent unheard condemnation.
Whether the trial Judge should be directed to fix a new date for recording evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Avinash Kumar & ors.
Arvind Kumar
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
