Single judge set aside order closing petitioner's evidence in a revision under Article 226, directing below court to grant one further opportunity to complete evidence by a fixed date subject to costs.
Petitioner granted one opportunity to complete evidence on a fixed date; costs of Rs. 2,500/- payable to respondents.
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. 2257 of 2009
(1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2257 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.4.2009
Inder Kaur
..... Petitioner
vs
Lady Dr. Anukamppa Garg and others
..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court.
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 suit as well.
The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for recovery as compensation, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner on 20.7.2005. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses on 11.4.2007 but their cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the defendants. On 13.8.2008, she examined two witnesses and their cross-examination was deferred for 16.2.2009 on which date the impugned order closing her evidence was passed. He submitted that case was adjourned so many times on the request of counsel for the respondents as their counsel failed to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete her entire evidence on the date already fixed by the learned court below.
(2)
Civil Revision No. 2257 of 2009
The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. As is evident from the zimni orders, it is not that only the petitioner was responsible for taking adjournments but on some dates the cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred on the request of counsel for the respondents. The case is stated to be fixed before the court below on 4.5.2009.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 16.2.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing her evidence on the date already fixed by it. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the respondents. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case she fails to complete her entire evidence on the date already fixed.
The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated
above.
24.4.2009 vs.
( Rajesh Bindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
whether the order closing the evidence of the petitioner should be set aside
whether the petitioner should be granted one further opportunity to complete her evidence
Inder Kaur
Lady Dr. Anukamppa Garg and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
