In a civil revision, the court held that a petition challenging the allowance of additional evidence became infructuous as the trial court had already completed the additional evidence stage.
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.
CR No.2262 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.2262 of 2011
Date of Decision: 1 - 9 - 2011
Jasbir Singh
....Petitioner
v.
Hargopal Singh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
*******
Present: Mr.Jagatpal Singh, Advocate for Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been filed praying that the impugned order dated 14.3.2011, Annexure P5, whereby the application filed by the respondent for adducing additional evidence was allowed, be set aside.
This Court had called for the status report from the trial Court in which it is stated that on 6.8.2011 PW Sukhdev Chander was crossexamined and thereafter attorney of the plaintiff had closed the additional evidence. It is further submitted that defendant had also made a statement that he does not want to lead evidence to rebut the additional evidence adduced by the plaintiff and now the case is fixed for 9.9.2011 for rebuttal evidence, subject to last opportunity.
CR No.2262 of 2011 [2]
Keeping in view the fact that additional evidence pursuant to order dated 14.3.2011, Annexure P5, has been examined, the present petition is rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 1, 2011. JUDGE
RC
Jasbir Singh
Hargopal Singh
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
