The High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for damages under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The court found no merit as the appellant failed to lead evidence despite six opportunities.
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to lead evidence on sufficient prior opportunities.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 243 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2008
Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal
..Appellant
v.
Inderjit Singh alias Jit Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him claiming damages of Rs. 20,000/- against the respondent-defendant was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure on account of appellant's leading no evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that fair opportunity was not afforded to the appellant-plaintiff to lead evidence in this case and it was on that account he was unable to present his case before the courts below in support of his claim. In case, opportunity is granted, he will lead his evidence without any delay.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The suit was filed claiming damages of Rs. 20,000/against the respondent-defendant on 21.3.2002. After framing of the issues, as many as six opportunities were granted to the appellant-plaintiff for leading evidence, but he did not avail of them and it was more than 4 years of filing of the suit on 3.4.2006 that the same was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Considering the fact that the amount involved in the suit is merely Rs. 20,000/-, that too on account of damages, I do not find any justification to interfere in the second appeal as the appellant failed to avail of sufficient opportunities afforded to him for leading evidence. No substantial question of law arises.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
11.11.2008 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should be allowed in a suit dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC for leading no evidence despite multiple opportunities afforded.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal
Inderjit Singh alias Jit Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
