Allowed

Balwinder Kaur v. Bachna

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2010CR/59/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a civil revision petition under Article 227, directing the trial court to grant the petitioner one additional opportunity to lead evidence at her own cost without issuing notice to the respondent to save delay and expenses.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the revision petition; directed the trial court to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to lead evidence at her own responsibility, with Rs 2000 costs precedent.

Balwinder Kaur Vs Bachna — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No.59 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.59 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.01.2010.

Balwinder Kaur

.……Petitioner

Versus

Bachna ……Respondent

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

¶12

Defendant No.2(a) Balwinder Kaur has filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur whereby evidence of the petitioner along with some other defendants has been closed by the Court order.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner may be granted only one more opportunity to lead her evidence at own responsibility.

¶15

Perusal of averments made in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the revision petition reveals that the defendants were granted 4 opportunities in all to lead their evidence.

¶16

Keeping in view all the circumstances, I intend to accept

¶17

C.R. No.59 of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner to allow the petitioner one more opportunity to lead her evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of costs. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is appearing as Legal Aid Counsel, on instructions from Punjab State Legal Services Authority and, therefore, cost amount may be modest.

¶20

I propose to dispose of the revision petition without issuing notice to respondent-plaintiff so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondent of expenses which he may have to incur in engaging counsel if notice of revision petition is issued to him.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead her entire evidence at her own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs precedent.

¶22

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶23

08.01.2010 A. Kaundal

Balwinder Kaur v. Bachna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Kaur v. Bachna

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

(O&M) Baljit Singh Vs Arjan Singh

Kanhi Ram Vs Chhabila and Ors.

Karnail Singh Vs Kuldeep Kaur Alias Deepan and Anr.

M/S Atma Ram Sohan Lal Vs Harjinder Singh

Dinesh Chand Vs Har Chandi etc.

Suman Vs Sukhbir Singh