Allowed

Babu Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2009CR/1837/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227, the single judge set aside the impugned order closing the petitioner's evidence. The court, noting the petitioner was not at fault due to official witnesses' absence, directed the lower court to grant one more opportunity to complete evidence on the already fixed date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.3.2009 setting aside the closure of evidence was set aside. The lower court was directed to grant one opportunity to complete evidence on the date fixed.

Babu Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2009

¶2

(1)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2009 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 1.4.2009

¶6

Babu Lal ..... Petitioner vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶9

Present: Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶11

Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court.

¶12

For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the reference as well.

¶13

The proceedings in the present case arise out of a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the petitioner and other claimants.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses to whom the petitioner wanted to examine are official witnesses and were not present inspite of service. For securing the presence of one of the witnesses, the court also issued non-bailable warrants for more than two times and when the said witness appeared he did not bring the whole record and the case was adjourned. On 27.2.2009, counsel for the petitioner was not available and the court granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence on 10.3.2009. On 10.3.2009, the court closed the evidence of the petitioner by order. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date fixed.

¶15

(2)

¶16

Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2009

¶17

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 merely seeking adjournments and not leading evidence rather after his evidence started on 9.3.2007, evidence was being led. As the witnesses who were produced or the petitioner wanted to produce are official witnesses. As is evident from the zimni orders, he has not tried to delay the proceedings but due to the fault of the official witnesses, he could not examine them. The case is stated to be fixed before the learned court below on 10.4.2009.

¶18

Considering the fact that the claim in the petition is for determination of fair value of the acquired land and also that the petitioner is not at all fault for not producing the witnesses, as a matter of indulgence, while setting aside the impugned order dated 10.3.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date already fixed by the court. 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 petitioner shall be at liberty to get summons issued for any official witness.

¶19

The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated

¶20

above.

¶21

1.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge

Babu Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Singh Vs Narinder Kumar & Ors.

Ranjit Singh and Ors. Vs Verkha Kaur and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs Haryana Roadways and Ors.

M/S Amar Singh Sohan Singh Vs Santokh Singh

Rattan Singh Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs M/S Gupta Roller Flour Mills