Disposed

Satpal v. Ramanjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2009CRM-M/31356/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking quashing of orders dismissing application for additional evidence in cheque dishonour case. Court directed lower court to grant one opportunity to examine witness from Indian Bank due to summons error, dismissing other legal contentions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial Court to grant petitioner one effective opportunity to examine witness from Indian Bank in defence evidence before proceeding.

Satpal Vs Ramanjit Singh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. 31356-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.11.2009

Satpal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Ramanjit Singh

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶11

**Present:Mr. Ajay Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. *****

¶12

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶13

The petitioner is facing prosecution in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted by the respondent.

¶14

Vide the impugned order dated 3.10.2008 passed by the learned trial Court the application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed subject to costs of Rs.1000/-. He, after availing number of opportunities, did not lead defence evidence and as such his defence was closed on 12.9.2008. He filed an application for leading additional evidence that has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.10.2008 with costs of Rs.1000/-. His revision preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court by virtue of order dated 21.10.2009. Dissatisfied with the same, the instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of both the orders.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed his application qua prayer to lead additional evidence. The Courts below have rightly observed that the petitioner is delaying the case on one pretext or the other and rightly imposed cost upon him while dismissing his application for leading additional evidence. However, so far as request of the petitioner for leading defence evidence is concerned, it has to be granted, so far as

¶16

¶17

witness of Indian Bank, as already sought to be examined by the petitioner, is concerned since earlier due to inadvertence witness of Bank of India was summoned and it is not apparent as to whether the witness of Indian Bank was summoned by the Court or not? The dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities . Even otherwise, rules and procedures are handmaid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for examining the witness from the Indian Bank in his defence evidence and then to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.

¶19

Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party, since he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feel dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application for recalling of the same.

¶20

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶21

November 9, 2009 Jiten

Satpal v. Ramanjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal v. Ramanjit Singh

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

Jagjit Singh Mann Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Manmohan Singh Vs Ranjeet Kaur and Anr.

Antosh Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dinesh Chander Vs State of Haryana

Ajaib Singh Vs Daljeet Singh

Lakhwidner Singh Vs State of Punjab