Allowed

M/S Sundesh Spring Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S P L Steel Industries

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2011CR/5175/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

H.C. in Civil Revision set aside the impugned order of Civil Judge closing defendant's evidence. Court allowed final opportunity to examine one remaining witness subject to payment of costs reflecting balance of equities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.8.2011 setting aside closed; final opportunity granted to examine witness Manoj upon payment of Rs.5000/- costs.

M/S Sundesh Spring Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.5175 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 1^st September, 2011

¶3

M/s Sundesh Springs (P) Ltd.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s P.L. Steel Industries

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. Surinder Singh Siao, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Present revision petition has been filed praying that the order dated 19^th August, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana be set aside.

¶12

A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) reveals that on 19^th August, 2011 the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana has closed the defendant’s evidence by order of the Court. The trial Court has stated that even though last and final opportunity was afforded to the defendant to conclude his evidence no witness was present.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner-defendant states that on 19^th August, 2011 case was adjourned to 26^th August, 2011, on which date no proceedings had taken place and the matter was adjourned to 7^th September, 2011. Learned counsel further states that he has to examine only one witness namely Manoj, Assistant Accountant of the petitioner- Firm. He submits that on the next date of hearing this witness will be produced at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner-defendant. Counsel further submits that for causing delay in culmination of the

¶14

¶15

Civil Revision No.5175 of 2011 (O&M)

¶16

proceedings, the petitioner-defendant is ready and willing to compensate the respondent-plaintiff in monetary terms.

¶17

I find merit in this contention advanced by counsel for the petitioner-defendant. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 19^th August, 2011 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. Taking into account the balance of equities and fair play, case is made out to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to examine Manoj, Assistant Accountant of the petitioner-Firm subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/-.

¶18

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶19

September 1, 2011 rps

M/S Sundesh Spring Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S P L Steel Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sundesh Spring Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S P L Steel Industries

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

Prem Vs Mange Ram

Kulwant Singh Vs Pseb and Ors.

Gurpartap Singh and Ors. Vs Pritam Singh

Jasbir Singh Vs Hargopal Singh

Narinder Singh Vs Gram Panchayat etc.

Gurdev Singh Vs Gram Panchayat etc.