High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a revision petition quashing an order that wrongly closed the defendant-petitioner's evidence in a civil suit, considering his medical incapacity due to surgery and illness.
Impugned order set aside; defendant-petitioner allowed one opportunity to lead entire evidence by dasti summons, payable Rs. 1,000.
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.
C.R. No. 2635 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 2635 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.4.2010
Bhai Manjit Singh
................Petitioner vs.
Bhoop Singh and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner
K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)
This is a revision petition against order Annexure P-3, vide which the remaining evidence of the defendant-petitioner has been closed by order.
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the present petitioner and two others. The case was fixed for evidence of defendant on 12.3.2010. On that date one witness of the defendant was present and his examination-in-chief was recorded in the form of affidavit and his cross examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. However, on that date the remaining evidence of the defendant was closed by order except cross examination of the witness examined on 12.3.2010.
C.R. No. 2635 of 2010 -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on 31.3.2010 the cross examination of that witness has been completed and the case is now fixed for rebuttal and arguments.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defendantpetitioner Manjit Singh was operated for Left Total Knee Arthroplasty on 16.7.2009 and was discharged on 22.7.2009. It is further contended that Manjit Singh further suffered from Swine Flu and remained admitted in Fortis Hospital from 31.1.2010 to 3.2.2010. Manjit Singh was advised rest. So, in these circumstances the petitioner could not lead the evidence. So, prayer has been made for allowing one opportunity for leading evidence.
Since the prayer is for grant of one opportunity to lead evidence and as such notice is not required to be issued.
From the perusal of the order dated 12.3.2010, it is revealed that the case was adjourned at the request of counsel for the plaintiff for 31.3.2010. When the Court itself was adjourning the case, in those circumstances, the defendant should have been allowed to lead the entire evidence on the next date, more so, when the adjournment was at the request of counsel for the plaintiff. Otherwise from the medical record produced on the file, it is revealed that Manjit Singh – petitioner was operated for Left Total Knee Arthroplasty and remained admitted in the hospital from 16.7.2009 till 22.7.2009. From the record of Fortis Hospital, it is revealed that petitioner suffered from Swine Flu and remained admitted in the hospital from 31.1.2010 to 3.2.2010.
So, in these circumstances, the impugned order stands set
C.R. No. 2635 of 2010 -3-
aside and the defendant-petitioner is allowed one opportunity to lead the entire evidence by taking dasti summons, on payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs.
The petition stands disposed of.
( K.C. Puri ) 23.4.2010 Judge chugh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the defendant-petitioner one opportunity to lead entire evidence when previous evidence was wrongly closed.
Whether notice is required for granting an opportunity to lead evidence in a revision petition.
Bhai Manjit Singh
Bhoop Singh
K. C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
