Dismissed

Resham Kaur and Ors. v. Babra Merry Nair

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2011CR/1793/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that declined the petitioners' prayer to lead additional evidence. The court upheld the trial Court's decision, noting the petitioners availed numerous opportunities but failed to examine witnesses or produce them for cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The application for additional evidence was disallowed; the civil revision petition was dismissed.

Resham Kaur and Ors. Vs Babra Merry Nair — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

ele

1 f 0 O 27s C5 e 6en4a 2 2 t SS C Z

¶8

S7 f1

¶9

Civil Revision N001793 of 2011 COSMI

¶10

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶11

Date of Decision2 March 141 1 2011 Civil Revision N001793 of 2011 108M1 Smt Resham Kaur and others Petitioners VERSUS Smte Babra Merry Nair Respondent CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1 Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment⁷ 2e To^bereferredto the Reportersor not7 3e Whether the judgment should be reportedⁱⁿ the Digest⁷ Presentl MrtvlSJoshi Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

MOHINDER PAL J

¶13

The defendantspetitioners^are aggrieved against^the order passed by^the trial Court whereby their prayer for allowing them to produce^additional evidenceⁱⁿ a suit filed by the plaintiffe respondent^for declaration and consequentialrellef of permanent

¶14

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Singh Gagan injunctionPreet2013.01.15 10: 44ⁱⁿ respectof the propertyⁱⁿ dispute^{hasbeendeclined} True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

1 r 0 0

I Z

I t Z

Q3 7 Z rAW

41
ll

Civil Revision No1793 of 2011 lOSM1e

¶25

After hearing^{theIearnedcounsel} for the petitioners and perusing^the impugnedorder I do not see any reason warranting^interference in the impugnedorder passed by the Iearned trial Judge The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent in the year 2005 Issues arising out of the pleadings^of the parties^were framed by the trial Court on 211120050 In fact the plaintifrespondent^had closed her evidence on 552009 after availing¹⁵ effective opportunities Thereafter the defendantsoetitioners availed eight effective opportunities till 9A²⁰¹⁰ However they did hot^examine even a single^witness and on 9A2010 the defendants^were given Iast and final opportunityto bring^and conclude their^evidence The defendants thereafter producedthree witnesses but again failed to produce these witnesses for crossexamination The defendants had by^then availed thirteen effective opportunities to conclude their evidence Ultimately^evidence of the defendants was closed by an order of the trial Court on 28920100 However on an application^moved by^them the defendants were shown further indulgence by the trial Court and they were allowed to conclude their evidence subjectto payment of costs of Rs25001m Still the defendants continued adopting dilly dallying tactics to conciude their evidence for one reason or the other It deserves mentioning^here that lll all seventeen eHective opportunities^{hadbeenavailed} by the defendants to conclude their evidenceSingh GaganPreet but they^failed to completetheir evidence tn spite JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:22 of that2013.01.15 10: 44True ScannedCopy of theInstead they made prayer for Ieading^additional evidence I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document Original PHHC, Chandigarh

1 0 0 X C9 Z Z

Z f Z 41

7 2

1
1

v3 Civil Revision Noa1793 of 2011 0SMIe

¶34

which was declined by^{thetrialCourt} by passing the impugned order The partiesto the suit cannot be allowed to deai the proceedings^before the trial Court Itl the m8nner they^Iike The Courts are to see that no party is made to suffer on account of the wrong approachof one of the partiestothe suit The trial Court^was under the circumstances justifiedⁱⁿ declining the prayer of^the defendants for Ieading^{additionalevidence} Dismissed

¶35

March 1 2011 ak

¶36

2 MOHINDERt i1 0 PAL I JUDGE

¶37

¶38

1 5
4
97 14

¶39

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

Singh Gagan Preet 2013.01.15 10: 44 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

Resham Kaur and Ors. v. Babra Merry Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resham Kaur and Ors. v. Babra Merry Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasmat and Anr. Vs Partap and Ors.

Buta Singh Vs Amarjit Singh and Ors.

District Education Officer Vs Rohtas and Anr.

M/S Awla Rice Mills and Anr. Vs M/S Vohra Agro Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Awla Rice Mills and Anr. Vs M/S Vohra Trading Comp

Mohinder Singh Vs C.S. Talwar