Dismissed

Ranjeet Singh v. Inder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2011CR/1865/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227, this Court rejected the petitioner's plea for a fresh opportunity to examine a handwriting expert. The Court held that the trial court was empowered to close evidence as the petitioner had failed to avail earlier opportunities, and no grave injustice was occasioned.

What did the court decide?

No relief. The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Ranjeet Singh Vs Inder Singh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1865 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.1865 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2011

Ranjeet Singh

.....Petitioner

Inder Singh and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Tarunveer Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.7351-CII of 2011

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Civil Revision No.1865 of 2011

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 17.2.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fatehabad, vide which evidence of petitioner has been closed.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

¶19

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to negligence of earlier counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, application could not be filed for examining the Handwriting Expert and hence, it is contended that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to examine the Handwriting expert.

¶20

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration for ownership on the basis of Will was filed by petitioner-plaintiff in the year 2005. Issues were framed in the year 2007.

¶21

-2-

¶22

Civil Revision No.1865 of 2011(O&M)

¶23

Several opportunities were availed by the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence. An additional issue was also framed on 23.12.2000. Thereafter as well three opportunities were availed by petitioner-plaintiff for adducing evidence and however, when no other evidence was present, the evidence was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order, which reads as under:-

¶24

“ No PW is present nor summoned through the Court. At this stage an application is filed for adjournment wherein it is stated that the applicant wants to summon handwriting expert in his evidence, therefore in the interest of justice one more opportunity be granted for evidence. On the other hand adjournment is vehemently opposed by counsels for the defendants.

¶25

Heard and perused the record. The plaintiff has already availed of three opportunities for PWs including last opportunity for today. The plaintiff did not file any application for examination of handwriting expert earlier. The case is one of the history sheeted case and identified for Samadhan 2010 which is to be disposed of up to March 2011. No plausible and cogent reason has been put forth for non-examination of handwriting expert on the earlier occasion. Hence, the application for adjournment is dismissed and evidence of PW is closed in default. To come up on 24.2.2011 for DWs on behalf of defendants. Summons be given dasti if so desired.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to satisfy this Court as to why another opportunity be granted to the petitionerplaintiff and as to why evidence now sought to be adduced was not adduced when sufficient opportunities were granted to him by learned trial Court. Suit has already become more than six years old.

¶27

Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

¶28

Civil Revision No.1865 of 2011(O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

¶31

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶32

18.3.2011 meenu

¶33

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Ranjeet Singh v. Inder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh v. Inder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharampal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baljinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

M/S Amritsar Fertilizer Agency Vs Pb. Land Dev. and Reclamation Crop. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S Suntex Handicrafts etc. Vs Poddar International Ltd.Etc.

Roop Chand Vs Raju @ Sukhbir and Ors.

Ajmer Singh Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.