Allowed

Parminder Kaur v. Kulwinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2010CR/5800/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition under Article 226, the High Court allowed the petitioner (a minor) to lead remaining evidence. The court held that strict adherence to the three-opportunity rule under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC was inappropriate for a minor indigent plaintiff and directed the trial court to grant an extra opportunity subject to cost.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; trial court directed to grant one more opportunity to lead remaining evidence upon payment of Rs. 2,500/- as cost precedent.

Parminder Kaur Vs Kulwinder Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C. R. No. 5800 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 5800 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision : January 19, 2010

¶6

Parminder Kaur – minor (through her maternal uncle and next friend Gurmail Singh)

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Kulwinder Singh and others .... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

Plaintiff Parminder Kaur (minor) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiffpetitioner by court order.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶18

case file.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner may be granted one more opportunity to lead her entire remaining evidence at own responsibility. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶20

C. R. No. 5800 of 2009

¶21

¶22

respondents contended that on 09.06.2009, counsel for plaintiff had made statement undertaking to lead the remaining evidence on next date of hearing at own responsibility, failing which the evidence of the plaintiff shall be deemed to be closed and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any more opportunity.

¶23

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

¶24

The plaintiff is a minor and has filed the instant suit through her maternal uncle as next friend. Defendant no.1 is father of the plaintiff, whereas defendants no.2 and 3 are grand parents of the plaintiff. Mother of plaintiff had allegedly died at the hands of defendants no.1 to 3. Defendant no. 4 is minor sister of the plaintiff. In all, four opportunities were given to the plaintiff by the trial court. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are to be granted. However, the said provision cannot be interpreted and applied with rigidity or rigor being rule of procedure. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is minor and has filed the suit as indigent person, in my considered opinion, interest of justice would be served if the plaintiff is granted another opportunity to lead her remaining evidence on payment of moderate amount of cost.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiffpetitioner to lead her remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. The plaintiff may take assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiff even on ground of non-service of witness or non-appearance of witness inspite of service or for any other reason whatsoever.

¶26

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶27

January 19, 2010 monika

Parminder Kaur v. Kulwinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parminder Kaur v. Kulwinder Singh and Ors.

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

Patram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ram Pal and Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs M/S S.S. Construction

Guru Nanak Public School Committee Vs Jasbir Singh Chahal and Ors.

Municipal Corporation Jalandhar Vs M/S Standard Furniture Makers Workshop

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana