Revision petition against an order closing defence evidence. High Court granted one last opportunity to examine witnesses and awarded costs.
Impugned order set aside; one last opportunity granted to examine defence evidence; costs of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 deposit directed.
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.560/2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.560/2011 Date of decision: 14.11.2011.
Dr.Shingara Singh and another
....................Petitioners
v.
Sukhbir Singh and another
.....................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh
Present: Mr.Manoj Nagrath,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Surinder Sharma,Advocate for respondent no.1
Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)
Petitioner-defendants have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 18.11.2010 (P7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar whereby their evidence has been closed by order.
Briefly noticed the facts of the case are that respondent no.1/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that he had approached the petitioners for removal of stones by laser therapy but instead the petitioners removed his kidney. The petitioners filed written statement broadly denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 was explained about the complications of
CR No.560/2011 2
removal of stone and told that at the time of operation, if needed, it may even require removal of kidney if such a situation arose. It is averred in the petition that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 had filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission, which was declined. Thereafter, he approached this Court for registration of an FIR but the said petition was also dismissed. Still further the plaintiff had also approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide complaint no.89/2000 which was also dismissed.
It is averred that after the pleadings were complete, issues were framed on 23.8.2004. Thereafter plaintiff led his evidence. The petitioners/defendants submitted a list of witnesses(P4) to be examined in defence. On 30.9.2010 examination in chief of DW4 Dr.Baljit Singh Bajwa was tendered by way of affidavit but he was not cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents and accordingly case was adjourned to 12.10.2010 for cross examination of the said witness as well as remaining defence evidence. On 12.10.2010 the case was adjourned to 18.11.2010 as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 18.11.2010 no DW was present and as such an adjournment was requested but the learned trial court closed the defence evidence on the ground that sufficient opportunities have already been granted.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that only two witnesses remain to be examined whose name figure in the list of witnesses already supplied and that the evidence of these two witnesses is vital for effective decision of the lis.
CR No.560/2011 3
It is further submitted that the petitioners be shown indulgence by this court by granting one last opportunity to lead the entire evidence on one date subject to costs which this Court may deem appropriate.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of dispute, in my opinion, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to grant one last opportunity to the petitioners/defendants to lead their evidence on one date to be fixed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 18.11.2010(P7) is set aside and the petitioners/defendants are granted one last opportunity to conclude their entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the trial court. This shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to respondent no.1/plaintiff by way of demand draft. Besides that the petitioners are further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- with the State Legal Services Authority,Punjab.
Disposed of in the above terms.
14.11.2011 joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Ju dge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the defence witnesses after sufficient adjournments without cause.
Dr. Shingara Singh and another
Sukhbir Singh
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
