Allowed

Simran v. Rahul

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2009CR/601/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retention in High Court allowed the Civil Revision appealing the trial court's decision. The court set aside the lower order and remanded the case, granting the appellant one more opportunity for cross-examination due to illness. Cross-examination fixed for July 24, 2009.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.1.2009 set aside. Cross-examination of appellant fixed for 24.7.2009 before the trial court.

Simran Vs Rahul — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 601 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 601 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: July 06, 2009

Simran

...... Appellant

Versus

Rahul

...... Respondent

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶12

Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶19

This petition has been filed for setting aside the order

¶20

dated 20.1.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar whereby he has held as follows:-

¶21

“Hence for the want of evidence issue No. stands decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this

¶23

Court had granted one opportunity to the petitioner to present herself for cross-examination but she could not do so because she had unfortunately taken ill. He has relied upon Annexure P-2 which is a copy of the OPD slip

¶24

Civil Revision No. 601 of 2009 2

¶25

dated 20.1.2009 issued by the Public Health Systems Corporation which shows that the petitioner was advised bed rest for two days.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that even on the earlier occasion it was this Court which had granted her one opportunity and, therefore, the petitioner having not appeared on that date does not deserve another opportunity.

¶27

In my opinion the prima facie evidence of the illness of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) is sufficient to grant her the indulgence of one more opportunity to present herself for cross-examination.

¶28

Consequently this revision petition is allowed. Order dated 20.1.2009 is set aside. Learned counsel for parties are agreed that this Court should fix a date so that no further confusion can take place and on the next date the cross-examination of the petitioner is concluded. In the circumstances I fix 24.7.2009 as the date on which the petitioner will present herself for cross-examination before the trial court.

¶29

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶30

July 06, 2009 sunita

Simran v. Rahul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simran v. Rahul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Devi etc. Vs Om Parkash etc.

Gunni and Anr. Vs Pala and Anr.

Baldev Singh Vs Darshan Kaur

Anjana Mittal Vs Dinesh Kumar and Ors.

Ram Chander Vs Laxman Singh & Ors.

Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs Uco Bank and Anr.