Allowed

Raj Rani v. Sudarshan Bhalla and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jul 2011CR/4134/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to modify the trial court order. It directed the trial court to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to examine only the necessary witness Arun Bhalla on payment of Rs. 5,000 as cost.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; impugned order modified to direct trial court to allow examination of witness Arun Bhalla subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 cost.

Raj Rani Vs Sudarshan Bhalla and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.4134 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.4134 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 12, 2011

Smt.Raj Rani

.....Petitioner

Sh.Sudarshan Bhalla and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Kamalpreet, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.16410-CII of 2011

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Civil Revision No.4134 of 2011

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 2.6.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panchkula, vide which evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was 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

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed after granting 14 opportunities. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned.

¶20

Civil Revision No.4134 of 2011(O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner wants to examine only one witness, namely, Arun Bhalla, who is vendor and is a necessary witness and, however, he could not come present on the date fixed due to death in his family. An application in this regard was also moved before learned trial Court. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity may be granted to petitioner for examining this witness only at his own responsibility.

¶23

In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to examine Arun Bhalla at his own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost.

¶24

Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to give one effective opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to examine Arun Bhalla as a witness at his own responsibility subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent.

¶25

12.7.2011 meenu

¶26

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Raj Rani v. Sudarshan Bhalla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rani v. Sudarshan Bhalla and Ors.

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

Jai Chand & Ors. Vs Mahender & Ors.

Ram Kishan Vs Pb Wakf Board and Ors.

Balwinder Kaur Vs Tarjinder Kaur and Ors.

Kanwal Prashad Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sheelawati Vs State of Punjab

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Haryana