Allowed

Hemant Kumar Vashishta v. Krishan Kumar Vashishta and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2009CR/7282/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed civil revision challenging closure of petitioner-defendant's evidence due to absence. Court granted one indulgent opportunity to complete proof on next date subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

One opportunity granted to petitioner to complete cross-examination on next hearing date subject to payment of Rs. 7,500/- cost to respondents.

Hemant Kumar Vashishta Vs Krishan Kumar Vashishta and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 7282 of 2009 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 7282 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.12.2009

¶4

Hemant Kumar Vashishta

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

Krishan Kumar and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.11.2009, passed by the learned court below in the after-noon session, whereby evidence of the defendant-petitioner was closed by order of the Court considering the fact that he was not present in the Court for further cross-examination. It was on account of the fact that during pre-lunch session, the court noticed the fact that the petitioner along with other defendants had been afforded 22 opportunities for leading their evidence and the date fixed for his further cross-examination was within his knowledge.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date on which the petitioner was cross-examined earlier on 19.11.2009 partly, the case was adjourned for 25.11.2009. On that date, the petitioner intimated the court about his visit to China from 20^th November to 27^th November, 2009 and requested for a date beyond that. However, his request was not considered. It is only the crossexamination of the petitioner which is to be completed. Besides that, some documents are to be tendered by him and that would conclude his evidence. The petitioner-defendant has been partly examined on 2-3 dates earlier.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that considering the conduct of the petitioner-defendant where he had already availed of 22 opportunities to complete the evidence, he does not deserve any further opportunity. The proceedings in the court were well within his knowledge and he

¶16

Civil Revision No. 7282 of 2009 [2]

¶17

could plan his visit abroad considering that fact.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the parties to the dispute are family members, where the claim is for partition of the property in meets and bounds, in my opinion, the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. It is also a fact that the petitioner has been cross-examined in part; the case is now fixed for 12.12.2009 for rebuttal evidence and arguments and the cross-examination of the petitioner is to be completed and he has to tender only certain documents in his evidence before conclusion, as a matter of indulgence, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner for the purpose, which can be availed of on the next date of hearing, i.e, 12.12.2009. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 7,500/- as cost to respondents No. 1 and 2- plaintiffs.

¶19

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶20

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

¶21

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶22

11.12.2009 mk

Hemant Kumar Vashishta v. Krishan Kumar Vashishta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar Vashishta v. Krishan Kumar Vashishta and Ors.

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

Mange Ram Vs Ranbir and Ors.

Ved Dewan Vs Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate

M/S Mahavir Rice and General Mills Vs Pb. St. Warehousing Corp. Chd. and Ors.

Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ranjit Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Parkash Singh Vs Sahib Singh and Others