Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Counsel for the petitioner prays for one last opportunity to complete his evidence before the trial Court. He submits that two witnesses, namely, Santokh Singh son of Surjit Singh and Kulwant Singh son of Sukha Singh are to be examined by the petitioner and if one opportunity is granted on his own risk and responsibility, the witnesses would be present in Court and their evidence may be completed.

¶16

Counsel for respondent No. 2-Sarabjit Singh states that it has been intentionally done to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. He further opposes the said prayer on the ground that it may not be taken as a reason to further prolong the litigation.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-19324 of 2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. It would be in the interest of justice that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to complete his evidence before the trial Court and examine the two witnesses, namely, Santokh Singh son of Surjit Singh and Kulwant Singh son of Sukha Singh before the trial Court on the date already fixed on his own risk and responsibility. This shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.

¶20

Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶22

August 12, 2009 pj

Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Surinder Kaur @ Chhindi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Baghail Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sandeep Singh @ Deepa Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Avtar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.