Dismissed

M/S Shreyans Spinning Mills v. M/S Nathu Ram Gursharan Dass and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2009CR/6868/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a constitutional revision under Article 227, the bench dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal of an application for stay of operation of judgment and decree, noting no ground for interference regarding witness examination procedures in the setting aside of an ex-parte decree.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with the finding that no ground for interference by the High Court was made out.

M/S Shreyans Spinning Mills Vs M/S Nathu… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R.No.6868 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.6868 of 2009(O&M ) Date of Decision: December 03,2009

¶5

M/s Shreyans Spinning Mills

¶6

...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Firm M/s Nathu Ram Gursharan Dass

¶9

..........Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶11

Present: Mr.O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Varun Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Sabina, J. (oral)

¶13

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge Muktsar.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 1.9.2009 whereby the application for stay of the operation of the judgment and decree in appeal was dismissed.

¶15

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

¶16

Plaintiff M/s Nathu Ram Gurcharan Dass, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.21,86,977.72. The said suit was decreed in an ex-parte on 26.8.2002 as the petitioner had failed to appear despite service. Thereafter, an application was moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application was allowed vide order dated

¶17

C.R.No.6868 of 2009 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

5.10.2004. Initially, the plaintiff had examined the witnesses while leading his exparte evidence. Thereafter, on setting aside of the ex-parte decree, the witnesses were recalled. Petitioner cross-examined the witnesses examined by the plaintiff and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, petitioner led its evidence and closed the same on 26.3.2009. When the plaintiff's witnesses were recalled and were cross-examined by the petitioner, no objection was taken at that time that they should furnish fresh affidavits in their examination-in-chief. PW1 Suresh Kumar was cross-examined on 12.4.2008. In these circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that the evidence led by the plaintiff could not be read as the examination-in-chief of the witnesses had not been recorded. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs witnesses were already on record and the witnesses appeared for the cross-examination and further they were duly cross-examined by the petitioner without any objection. In these circumstances learned Additional District Judge had rightly dismissed the application. No ground for interference is made out.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

( Sabina ) Judge

¶22

December 03, 2009 arya

M/S Shreyans Spinning Mills v. M/S Nathu Ram Gursharan Dass and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shreyans Spinning Mills v. M/S Nathu Ram Gursharan Dass 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

Gurmeet Singh Pehalwan Vs Preeti @ Manpreet Kaur

Khem Singh Vs Chiranjiv Singh

Bela Singh and Anr. Vs Renu Garg

Kulwant Kaur and Another Vs Tara Wati and Others

Baljit Kaur etc. Vs Darshana Rani etc.

Kanshi Ram Vs Dharam Singh and Ors.