Revision petition challenging an order closing petitioner's evidence. Court set aside order, directed grant of one opportunity to complete evidence within two weeks, and imposed costs.
Impugned order setting aside; directed to grant one opportunity to complete evidence within two weeks; costs of Rs. 2,500 to plaintiff.
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.
Civil Revision No. 1327 of 2009
(1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1327 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 2.4.2009
Kirpal Singh
..... Petitioner
vs
Joginder Singh and others
..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent no. 1.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Through the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court.
The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for declaration filed by respondent no. 1/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant no. 5 and respondents no. 1 to 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner only wanted to examine clerk of the office of Tehsildar, Patiala. He has already deposited diet money of the witness vide application dated 26.11.2008. He further submitted that the petitioner was not delaying the matter and prayed that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the learned court below.
The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was delying the matter by seeking adjournments and not leading evidence. As is evident from the record, the petitioner had even deposited diet money for summoning of the witness but as per the report of the process server, the concerned patwari was not available.
Civil Revision No. 1327 of 2009
(2)
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 19.2.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner is set aside and the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date to be fixed by the court within two weeks of the next date of hearing before the evidence of the defendants is recorded. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/as costs to the plaintiff/respondent. The petitioner is at liberty to get the dasti summons issued for the official witnesses. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete his entire evidence on the date fixed.
The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated
above.
2.4.2009 vs.
( Rajesh Bindal) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order closing the petitioner's evidence was erroneous in that the petitioner had not delayed the matter and had deposited diet money.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kirpal Singh
Joginder Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
