Revision petition challenging an order closing evidence. Court found evidence was regularly produced but crossexamination deferred due to compromise. Set aside impugned order.
Set aside the impugned order closing evidence and allow the revision petition in limine without order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1802 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.04.2011.
Ramesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Ramesh Kumar ...Respondent
...Petitioners
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.02.2011 by which evidence of the petitioners has been ordered to be closed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced zimni orders before this Court from which I have found that the petitioners have been regularly producing their witnesses for examination, but their crossexamination was deferred many a times on the request of counsel for the respondent and then the matter was kept on adjourning because of the talks of compromise between the parties.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid fact, I do not agree with the impugned order whereby learned Rent Controller has observed that 18 opportunities have been granted to the petitioners but they have not led their evidence and as such, the impugned order is hereby set aside by allowing this revision petition in limine, though without any order as to costs.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain ) Judge
April 20, 2011 vinod*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the non-lead of evidence by petitioners despite 18 opportunities, attributed to deferred crossexamination and adjournments due to compromise talks, justifies closing evidence.
Whether the impugned order regarding closure of evidence is sustainable on the facts found regarding opportunities granted.
Ramesh Kumar and others
Ramesh Kumar
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
