Petitioner challenged an order closing evidence due to failure to appear after giving an undertaking. The Court found no justification for further opportunity and dismissed the revision.
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.2245 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Revision No.2245 of 2009(O&M)
Decided on : January 21, 2011
Sanjay Kaushik
... Petitioner
VERSUS
Ranjit Singh Chhajalwandi and another
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.G.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for Mr.S.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Sewak, Advocate for respondent No.1.
- A.N.JINDAL, J.
Assailed in this petition is the order dated 21.2.2009, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff – petitioner was closed by order.
Heard.
On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner had made a categoric statement on 24.2.2007, wherein, he had given an undertaking to conclude the entire evidence on the next date, failing which his evidence would be treated as closed. However, even thereafter, the petitioner was given number of opportunities i.e, on 2.6.2007, 11.10.2007, 18.2.2008, 2.5.2008, 11.9.2008, 15.11.2008 and 8.1.2009, but he failed to conclude the evidence. It was only thereafter that the Trial
Civil Revision No.2245 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ]
Court vide the impugned order had to close the evidence by order.
In the circumstances, there is no justification to grant any
further opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence.
No merit. Dismissed.
January 21, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE
Sanjay Kaushik
Ranjit Singh Chhajalwandi
A.N.JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
