This revision petition challenged an order closing the petitioner's evidence in a civil suit for permanent injunction. The court found the petitioner had availed numerous adjournments without fault and found no merit in the petition, dismissing it.
The petition was dismissed; no further opportunity to conclude evidence was granted to the petitioner.
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.
CR No.360 of 2010
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.360 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 20, 2010.
Sanjeev Kumar
...Petitioner (s)
v.
Anil Kumar
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Shri D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):
This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 20.11.2009, whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the court.
Questioning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that a direction be given to the trial court to give one effective opportunity to him to complete his evidence.
As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent. Issues were framed in this case on 17.9.2004. According to the petitioner, he submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit dated 26.9.2005 as PW1 on 12.12.2005. His cross examination was deferred and partial cross examination was conducted on 21.7.2006. However, on the request of
CR No.360 of 2010
-: 2 :-
defence counsel, the same was deferred to 28.8.2006. It is the further case of the petitioner that he remained present on the dates fixed for his cross examination, however, the case was adjourned for one or the other reason and he had sought adjournment only once on medical grounds on 29.1.2007. It is only on 8.12.2009, when he went along with his counsel to the court for his cross examination, he came to know that his evidence had already been closed by order dated 20.11.2009 of the court. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity to complete/conclude his evidence by producing himself as witness.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this petition.
Admittedly, issues were framed in this case on 17.9.2004 and the petitioner presented himself as PW1 on 12.12.2005 when he tendered his affidavit as Ex.PA in his examination-in-chief. A partial cross examination was conducted on 21.7.2006 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 28.8.2006 on the request of the defence counsel. However, the petitioner has not placed on record any zimni orders or other documents to substantiate his claim that since 28.8.2006 till the closing of the evidence on 20.11.2009 vide the impugned order, he was not at fault except seeking adjournment on 29.1.2007. Rather, from the impugned order, it is found that the petitioner availed numerous opportunities, including as many as four last opportunities, yet he failed to conclude his evidence.
No doubt, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are hand-maid for administration of justice, however, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs and there is no justification
CR No.360 of 2010
-: 3 :-
allowing him further opportunity.
Thus, I find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
January 20, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to further opportunity to complete his evidence after availing numerous adjournments.
Whether the impugned order closing the petitioner's evidence requires to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar
Anil Kumar
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
