In a civil revision, the High Court observed that the Trial Court had not completely closed the defendant-petitioner's evidence. It granted him two months to conclude evidence subject to costs, without issuing notice to the respondent.
Petitioner granted two months to conclude evidence subject to Rs.1000/-; no notice issued to respondent.
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.
Civil Revision No.122 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Revision No.122 of 2011(O&M)
Decided on : January 21, 2011
Rakesh
... Petitioner
VERSUS
Ranjit Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Vide the impugned order dated 9.11.2010, the Trial Court at Gurgaon has closed the defendants' evidence by order.
Heard.
Counsel for the petitioner states that she wants to lead only
expert evidence.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Trial Court has not completely closed the evidence of the defendants – petitioner and it has granted opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine DW Rakesh.
In view of the matter, the defendant – petitioner is granted time to conclude his evidence within two months, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs.
This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the
Civil Revision No.122 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ]
respondent with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondent may move this court for recalling this order.
January 21, 2011 `gian'
( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court had completely closed the defendants' evidence.
Whether the petitioner should be granted time to conclude his expert evidence.
Rakesh
Ranjit Singh and others
A.N.Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
