Full BenchSubmitted This concise judgment dismisses a revision petition challenging an order closing the petitioner's evidence. The court refused further opportunity due to significant delay and repeated failure to utilize prior chances, upholding the lower court's decision. (GH)
The revision petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 869 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.2.2009
Vinod Kumari
... .Petitioner
Versus
Vinod Kumar and others
... Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJESH BINDAL J
The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated August 5, 2008 passed by the learned Court below whereby the evidence of the petitioner/defendant was closed by order of the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner/defendant will complete her entire evidence on the date to be given for the purpose.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and seeing her conduct, I do not find it to be a fit case where any further opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner/defendant for leading her evidence. The impugned order was passed on August 5, 2008. The present petition has been filed in this Court on February 16, 2009, more than six months thereafter. Not only this in the intervening period the petitioner/defendant even filed an application for leading additional evidence and the same was also dismissed on January 30, 2009. It is also a fact that for leading her evidence the petitioner/defendant was granted as many as eight opportunities which she did not avail of to complete her evidence.
In view of the aforesaid facts I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.
The revision petition is dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) 17.2.2009 JUDGE Reema
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order closing the petitioner's evidence due to delay and non-availing of multiple opportunities.
Vinod Kumari
Vinod Kumar and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
