Allowed

Mehal Singh v. Dharminder Kaur & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Nov 2009CR/6432/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside an interim order declaring witnesses cross-examined. The petitioner was granted leave to recall the witnesses for cross-examination subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim order setting aside the April 27, 2009 order for non-recording of cross-examination of the five AWs. Petitioner to move an application for recalling the witnesses to be allowed by the

Mehal Singh Vs Dharminder Kaur & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R. No. 6432 of 2009 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.R. No. 6432 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: November 6, 2009

Mehal Singh

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Dharminder Kaur and others

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

-.-

¶15

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Vide impugned order dated April 27, 2009, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti has recorded in the interim order that 5 AWs i.e. Manjinder Singh, Gurmail Singh, Surinder Mohan, Sushil Kumar and Avtar Singh cross-examined and the applicant Manwinder Singh had made a statement closing his evidence.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the Statements of Manjinder Singh and Gurmail Singh to contend that in the cross-examination of the said witnesses, it has been recorded “nil

¶18

C.R. No. 6432 of 2009 [2]

¶19

(O.G.)”. Counsel submits that similar words have been written under the cross-examination of other AWs. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that it is wrongly recorded in the interim order that the witnesses have been cross-examined. As a matter of fact no opportunity was granted to the plaintiff- petitioner to cross-examine the applicant- defendants in application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Counsel for the plaintiffpetitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact on April 27, 2009, counsel for the petitioner was not available in Patti but had gone to Tarn Taran to argue some appeal as such it has been wrongly noticed in the order dated April 27, 2009 that witnesses were cross-examined.

¶20

It appears that fair opportunity has not been given to the petitioner through his counsel to cross-examine the witnesses.

¶21

The revision petition is allowed in limine and the order dated April 27, 2009 observing that witnesses stood cross-examined is set aside. The petitioner will move an application for recalling the five witnesses who were present on April 27, 2009 for their cross-examination. The said application will be allowed by the trial Court subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-. The costs will be paid to the witnesses on their appearance for cross-examination on the date fixed by the trial Court. In case the application is not filed within a period of one week after the receipt of a certified copy of the order, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶22

November 6, 2009 sanjay

¶23

C.R. No. 6432 of 2009 [3]

Mehal Singh v. Dharminder Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehal Singh v. Dharminder Kaur & 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

Rehmati Vs Aamin & Ors.

Ram Dia Vs Kehar Singh

Satnam Singh Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

Raj Bala Vs Subhash Chand & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Sharanjit Singh

Dharam Singh Vs Harjit Singh and Anr.