Dismissed

Baldev Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Oct 2009CR/5851/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court's order closing the petitioner-defendant's evidence due to non-payment of costs, finding no material illegality warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed, upholding the impugned order closing the petitioner-defendant's evidence.

Baldev Singh Vs Hardial Singh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No.5851 of 2009(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.5851 of 2009 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: October 20, 2009

¶6

Baldev Singh ...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hardial Singh and others ..........Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶10

Present: Mr.Naveen Batra,Advocate,for the petitioner.

¶11

Sabina, J. (oral)

¶12

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib.

¶13

Plaintiffs filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance and agreement to sell dated 5.3.2002. The suit was filed in the year 2002. Notice was issued to the defendants. Vide impugned order, the evidence of the petitioner-defendants has been closed vide order dated 6.8.2009. Hence, the present revision petition.

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶15

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed in the

¶16

CR No.5851 of 2009(O&M)

¶17

¶18

year 2005. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for the defendant's evidence. On 20.5.2009, the following order was passed by the trial Court:-

¶19

Present:- Counsel for the parties.

¶20

DW-1 is present and cross-examined. No other DW is present. Request for an adjournment which is strongly opposed by the opposite party. Last opportunity is extended to the defendant to lead and conclude entire evidence but subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs for 6.8.2009. The defendant is directed to supply the copies of the affidavits of DWs to be tendered in advance to the opposite party to enable him for crossexamine the witnesses, failing which the defendant shall not be allowed to lead his evidence on the next date."

¶21

Thereafter, on 6.8.2009, the impugned order was passed which reads as under:-

¶22

“Present: Counsel for the parties.

¶23

No evidence of the defendant is present. Cost not paid. Request for an adjournment which is strongly opposed by the opposite counsel. In view of the last Zimni order on the file, evidence of the defendant is deemed to be closed.

¶24

An application for impleading the LRs of plaintiff Gurbachan Singh filed. Copy supplied. Now to come up on 20.8.2009 for filing reply and also for consideration.”

¶25

In the present case, the petitioner had failed to deposit the costs as imposed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.5.2009. In these circumstances, the trial court was left with no other alternative but to close the evidence of the petitioner by order. Moreover, the case had remained

¶26

CR No.5851 of 2009(O&M)

¶27

¶28

pending for the defendant's evidence since the year 2005 and the impugned order was passed on 6.8.2009.

¶29

The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Dismissed.

¶31

( Sabina ) Judge

¶32

October 20, 2009 arya

Baldev Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh v. Hardial Singh 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

Hari Singh Vs Vijender Singh and Ors.

Jai Singh Vs Magma Leasing Ltd. and Ors.

Tarsem Singh Vs Baljit Kaur and Ors.

Harish Kumar Vs Shiv Lal and Ors.

Harpreet Kaur Vs Managing Committee Khalsa College

Ravinder Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.