High Court allowed the appeal held the impugned order closing appellant's evidence illegal and remanded matter for fresh opportunity. Appellant to pay costs to secure relief.
Order closing evidence set aside; case remanded for fresh evidence; Trial Court to conclude within six months; appellant to pay Rs.40,000/- costs.
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
RSA No.1491 of 2008 Decided on : 04.09.2009
Jaipal
... Appellant
versus
Balbir & anothers
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate
for the respondents.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for specific performance.
The preliminary question of law proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of the appellant was closed by Court order dated 22.09.2005. In fact that was only the third effective date given to the appellant for evidence. Further prior to that, the learned Presiding Officer had been transferred and it was only on 22.09.2005 the case was transferred to the successor Court and on that very date the case was registered and evidence of the appellant was closed. Learned counsel further states that prior to that order, learned counsel before the Court below had informed the appellant that
RSA No.1491 of 2008
-2-
the Presiding Officer has been transferred and evidence would not be led on the date fixed, viz 22.09.2005. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to deny this chronology of dates. He however, submits that in any case, even on the previous effective dates, no evidence had been led by the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was entirely blameless. He further states that even though this revisable order could be challenged in the appeal but the respondents had to engage separate counsel in two courts and even the case has been delayed for more than four years. Keeping in view all the above facts, I hold that the order closing the evidence of the appellant was illegal and consequently set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to give one more effective opportunity to the appellant to lead his entire evidence.
Parties are directed through counsel to appear before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jind who may either keep the case on its own board or may place it before other learned Civil Judge.
It is made clear that this order will come into operation only if the appellant pays costs of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents in the form of a bank draft. Keeping in view the fact that the suit is of the year 2001, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date next fixed in the case.
RSA No.1491 of 2008
-3-
Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any stand disposed of.
September 04, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order closing the evidence of the appellant was illegal.
Whether the appellant should be given another opportunity to lead evidence.
Jaipal
Balbir
AJAY TEWARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
