The High Court allowed a revision petition to set aside an order closing evidence, granting the petitioner a final opportunity to cross-examine witnesses PW1 to PW5 subject to payment of costs.
Revision petition allowed; impugned order of 29.7.2011 set aside; opportunity granted to cross-examine PW1-PW5 subject to payment of Rs 10,000.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.6270 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2011
Sati Devi
....Petitioner
Versus
Veena Devi
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner
Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.7.2011, passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana vide which the evidence of the plaintiffpetitioner was closed by order dated 29.7.2011 and further to grant one last opportunity to conclude her evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though 33 effective opportunities were given but on most of the dates, the time was mainly sought by the counsel for the defendant/respondent. Further contends that the defendant-respondent has not been able to cross-examine PW1 to PW5, who are the material witnesses and the same will affect the outcome of the suit.
CR No.6270 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file carefully including the the Zimni orders passed by learned trial Court.
From the perusal of the case file, it is made out from para No.8 of the petition that on most of the dates, no effective hearing took place. On some of the dates witnesses were not present. However, on some of the dates, cross-examination of the witnesses present in the Court was deferred at the request of counsel for the defendant-respondent. Affidavits of PW1 to PW5 were tendered on 15.5.2006. It is the defendant, who delayed the proceedings on one pretext or the other.
Keeping in view the fact that non-examination of the witnesses would materially affect the proper adjudication of the case, in the interest of justice one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to produce her witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW5 for cross-examination, subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as cost. If required, the petitioner-plaintiff will seek assistance of the Court to procure the presence of the witnesses to be cross-examined, but that too, will be at her own cost and responsibility. The date of crossexamination of the witnesses will be fixed by the learned Trial Court.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed; impugned order dated 29.7.2011 is set aside with the above observations.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
14.10.2011 gsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant a final opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine material witnesses before closing her evidence.
Sati Devi
Veena Devi
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
