Partly allowed

M/S Jtpl Townships Private Ltd. v. Om Parkash

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2011CR/4130/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition under Article 227, the High Court examined an impugned order closing the petitioner-plaintiff's evidence. While finding no illegality in closing evidence, the Court modified the order to allow a single effective opportunity to tender specific public documents from the Registrar of Companies upon payment of Rs. 10,000 as cost.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was modified to grant the petitioner one effective opportunity to tender specific documents in evidence, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as cost.

M/S Jtpl Townships Private Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Revision No.4130 of 2011(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.4130 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2011

¶5

M/s JTPL Townships Private Limited

.....Petitioner

Om Parkash

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.3.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karnal, vide which evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been closed.

¶15

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.

¶16

Perusal of impugned order and the various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court shows that evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed after giving sufficient opportunities and after giving 2-3 last opportunities. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order.

¶17

However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner does not want to examine any witness and that he only wants to tender copies of certain documents mentioned in para no.5 of

¶18

-2-

¶19

Civil Revision No.4130 of 2011(O&M)

¶20

the petition, which are per se admissible being copies of public documents, obtained from the Office of Registrar of Companies.

¶21

Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to tender these documents in evidence at its own responsibility subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent.

¶22

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶23

13.7.2011 meenu

M/S Jtpl Townships Private Ltd. v. Om Parkash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jtpl Townships Private Ltd. v. Om Parkash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanwal Prashad Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Raj Rani Vs Sudarshan Bhalla and Ors.

Sheelawati Vs State of Punjab

Bhoop Singh Vs Partap Singh @ Pat Ram and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs the Presiding Officer and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.