The High Court revisited a Civil Judge's order closing the petitioner's evidence due to witness absence. The Court allowed a one-time opportunity to lead evidence upon payment of Rs. 1,000/- costs, warning no further chance would be given.
Petitioner granted one more opportunity to lead evidence upon payment of Rs. 1,000/- costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.599 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.5.2009
Bent Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot, whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 4.11.2008 closing the evidence of the petitioner is erroneous, as on the previous date the PWs were present for cross-examination and the case was adjourned at the request of the Government Pleader and the PWs were bound down for 4.11.2008 on which date the PWs were not present and in these circumstances, the evidence of the petitioner could not be closed by order, without there being any fault on his part.
Controverting the aforesaid argument on the basis of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in fact, three effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence but he failed to produce the same and even failed to deposit process fee as well as diet money of the witnesses to be summoned and therefore, no fault can be found with
CR No.599 of 2009
-2-
the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is well settled that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for the administration of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at his own risk and responsibility subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. The payment of costs shall be condition precedent for granting the aforesaid opportunity. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence.
This revision petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.5.2009. On that date, the trial Court will fix a further date granting an opportunity to the petitioner as aforesaid.
May 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Judge was justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner without fault on his part.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bent Singh
State of Punjab and others
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
