Allowed

Naresh v. Shubha Chand and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2009CR/6465/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Moved under Civil Revision, the petitioner sought relief as the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff whose evidence was closed before the plaintiff died. The High Court allowed the revision, directing the trial court to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to examine himself and impose costs.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed; the trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at his own risk and responsibility subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as cost

Naresh Vs Shubha Chand and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 6465 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

-.-

¶4

Civil Revision No. 6465 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 14.12.2009

Naresh

.... Petitioner.

Versus

Shubha Chan & Anr.

.... Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA.

¶11

Present:- Mr. J.V.Yadav, Advocate, with the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

Sabina (J)

¶14

Rajender Parshad had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his ownership and possession qua the suit property. Rajender Parshad had died during the pendency of suit and the petitioner being his legal representative was brought on record. Vide impugned order the evidence of the petitioner was closed. Hence the present revision petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rajinder Parshad-plaintiff was admitted in the hospital on 18.2.2009 and he had died on 22.2.2009. Evidence of the plaintiff was however closed on 19.2.2009. Only plaintiff remained to be examined in this case and now the petitioner being legal representative of the plaintiff was to be examined in this case.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it was an old case and sufficient opportunity has been granted to the plaintiff to lead his

¶17

Civil Revision No. 6465 of 2009

¶18

evidence.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition deserves to be allowed.

¶20

Although sufficient opportunity was granted to the plaintiffRajender Parshad to lead his evidence and the case before the trial Court is an old one yet in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to allow one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. In the facts of the present case where the original plaintiff has died and now the petitioner who is the legal representative of the plaintiff remains to be examined, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to examine himself in the witness box. The other side can be compensated with costs.

¶21

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at his own risk and responsibility subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs. Thereafter the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶22

December 14, 2009 (Sabina) tripti Judge

Naresh v. Shubha Chand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh v. Shubha Chand and Anr.

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

Amar Kaur Vs Jagir Singh and Ors.

M/S Singla Trading Co. Vs Gurdeep Singh

HUDA and Anr. Vs Inder Singh and Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs Shiv Charan and Ors.

(O&M)Santokh Singh Vs Kuldip Singh

Tara Chand Sharma Vs Haryana State