Petitioner challenged order dismissing application to examine himself as witness and produce document. Bench held application not maintainable as no statutory provision cited; suit closed over decade ago.
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.
C.R. No. 3068 of 2009 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 3068 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.5.2009
Rattan Singh
... .Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh and others
... Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJESH BINDAL J
The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated April 2, 2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permitting him to examine himself as PW and also place on record some documentary evidence has been dismissed.
Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is joint owner in possession of the suit land with the proforma defendants. The suit was filed on October 22, 1998. The evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court on April 26, 2007. Thereafter, application was filed before the learned Court below on November 5, 2007 for permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to examine himself and also to place certain documentary evidence on record. The application having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date when the evidence of the petitioner was closed the counsel who was representing the petitioner was not well as he had undergone bye pass surgery. It was on that account that the petitioner could not be examined and the left over evidence could not be recorded and the petitioner being 77 years of age was also not keeping good health. The submission is that in case one last opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date to be fixed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. If the petitioner/plaintiff could not complete his evidence even after a decade of filing of suit, some end has to be put to the proceedings. In the present case evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court on April 26, 2007 but that order was not challenged before any Court, rather fresh application was filed for seeking examination of plaintiff/petitioner as a witness and also to produce certain documentary
C.R. No. 3068 of 2009 (O&M)
2
evidence. Learned Court below has rightly dismissed the same as not maintainable as no provision of law was cited under which such an application could be entertained by the trial Court.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
26.5.2009 JUDGE
Reema
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for re-opening of evidence filed after a decade and without citing statutory provision is maintainable?
Rattan Singh
Rakesh and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
