Allowed

Manjit Kaur and Another v. Pepsu Road Transport Corp. and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2011CR/4397/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition was filed challenging an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal declining a request to produce a witness for cross-examination. The Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the petitioners one opportunity to produce the witness at their own risk and responsibility.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.5.2011 is set aside and the petitioners are allowed to produce PW3 Bharpur Singh on the next date of hearing for crossexamination at their own risk and responsibility.

Manjit Kaur and Another Vs Pepsu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.4397 of 2011 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Revision No.4397 of 2011

¶4

Date of Decision: 22 - 9 - 2011

¶5

Manjit Kaur and another ....Petitioners v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents and another

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶7

*******

¶8

Present: Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Ms.Pooja Goyal, Advocate for Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶10

None for respondent No.2.

¶11

¶12

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 13.5.2011, Annexure P4, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby the request of the petitioners to produce PW3 Bharpur Singh for cross-examination has been declined.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are unfortunate parents, who had lost their son aged 24½ years in an accident. It is stated that the deceased had obtained degree of B.Tech. and was a student of Master in Business Administration in Thapar College, Patiala.

¶15

CR No.4397 of 2011 [2]

¶16

Counsel states that for the claimant-petitioners to examine PW3 Bharpur Singh is very necessary as he was an eye witness of the occurrence. Counsel states that due to excessive rain, Bharpur Singh was held up at Rudar Paryag, Uttranchal. Therefore, his non appearance on the day when the evidence was closed, was not willful but was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the witness of the petitioners.

¶17

Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 states that various opportunities were granted to the claimant-petitioners, who have failed to conclude their evidence.

¶18

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, one opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioners to produce PW3 Bharpur Singh at their own risk and responsibility.

¶19

Consequently, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order dated 13.5.2011 is set aside. On the next date of hearing, the petitioners shall produce Bharpur Singh PW3 to facilitate his crossexamination at their own risk and responsibility.

¶20

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 22, 2011. JUDGE

¶21

Manjit Kaur and Another v. Pepsu Road Transport Corp. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Kaur and Another v. Pepsu Road Transport Corp. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sanjiv Chawla Vs Maninder Kaur Alias Sweety Chawla

Nathu Ram Vs Chhotu Singh

Sukhpal Kaur Vs Gurjant Singh

M/S Genexx Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Satish Kumar Vij and Ors.

Vijender Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Rasulpur