Dismissed

Surjit Singh v. Jagroop Alias Jaggu

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2010CR/4779/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order closing evidence in a suit. The High Court held that the petitioner had availed 11 effective opportunities and the statutory limit under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC (which allows three) was not a rigid bar, thus finding no merits in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed in limine; impugned order upholding closure of evidence.

Surjit Singh Vs Jagroop Alias Jaggu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C. R. No. 4779 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 4779 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision : August 02, 2010

Surjit Singh

.... Petitioner

Vs.

Jagroop alias Jaggu and others .... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Surjit Singh plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiffpetitioner by court order.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶17

case file.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only two more opportunities may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for leading his

¶19

C. R. No. 4779 of 2010

¶20

¶21

remaining evidence, on payment of cost.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find myself unable to accede to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that 12 opportunities were granted to the petitioner for his evidence. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court, reproduced in paragraph 7 of the revision petition, reveals that in fact, 13 opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence. On one date of hearing, two witnesses of the plaintiff-petitioner, who were present, could not be examined on request made by learned counsel for the opposite party and on another date of hearing, one witness of the plaintiff, who was present, was partly examined and his further cross-examination was deferred as court time was over. Even excluding these two opportunities, plaintiff-petitioner availed of 11 effective opportunities for his evidence, but failed to conclude the same. In these circumstances, no justification is made out for granting any further opportunity to plaintiffpetitioner for his remaining evidence.

¶23

It may be added that according to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), only three opportunities are required to be given to a party for its evidence. This provision has been inserted by amendment to curtail the delay in disposal of suits as such delay is attracting widespread criticism from all stake holders and other quarters and rightly so. It is true that the aforesaid provision being rule of procedure

¶24

C. R. No. 4779 of 2010

¶25

¶26

may not be enforced with complete rigidity or inflexibility. However, even after allowing some flexibility in the enforcement of the provision, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the instant revision petition because he has already been granted at least 11 effective opportunities for his evidence. The aforesaid salutary provision cannot be made redundant by granting further indulgence in the instant case. The trial court has already granted much more than the required number of reasonable opportunities for the evidence of the plaintiff. Even if the aforesaid provision is excluded from consideration altogether, there has to be some limit to the number of adjournments to be granted to a party for its evidence. In the instant case, the said limit has already been exceeded and rather crossed by the plaintiff.

¶27

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶28

August 02, 2010

¶29

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶30

monika

Surjit Singh v. Jagroop Alias Jaggu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh v. Jagroop Alias Jaggu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chander etc. Vs Kali Ram

Geeta Ram Vs Hari Ram etc. .

Kiran @ Mandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs Jaswant Singh & Ors.

Narinder Pal Singh Vs Baljit Kaur

Kanwar Divindra Singh Vs Kanwar Jeot Inder Singh & Ors.

Yashdev Vs State of Haryana