Manwinder Singh @ Maninder Singh & Ors. v. Baltej Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2011CR/6354/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge oral revision order allowed the petition. The High Court set aside the impugned order closing evidence, granting the petitioner-plaintiffs one more opportunity for effective cross-examination of PW1 instead of allowing non-cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 2.9.2011 is set aside; one more opportunity is granted for cross-examination of PW1, subject to payment of ₹ 10,000/- costs.

Manwinder Singh @ Maninder Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No. 6354 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.10.2011

¶3

Manwinder Singh and others

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Baltej Singh and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶9

Present: Mr.Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

¶11

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶12

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.9.2011, (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna vide which the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order.

¶13

Learned counsel contends that during the pendency of the suit, the mother of the petitioner No.1 expired and he was ordered to be impleaded as plaintiff being son of the deceased Amarjit Kaur-plaintiff. Further contends that service of the defendants took a long time. Issues were framed on 17.5.2010 and the case was ordered to be listed for 27.7.2010 for the plaintiff's evidence. Further contends that no effective opportunity was granted to the plaintiff and if the petitioners/ plaintiffs is granted one more opportunity, it will not cause prejudice to the opposite party.

¶14

CR No. 6354 of 2011 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

¶17

case file.

¶18

From the perusal of the case file, it is apparent that on most of the dates, no PW was present and the case was adjourned number of times for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiffs/petitioners. The examination-in-chief of PW1 has already been tendered by the plaintiff in evidence.

¶19

Keeping in view the fact that non-cross-examination of PW1 would materially affect the proper adjudication of the case, in the interest of justice one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners-plaintiffs to submit PW1 for effective cross-examination, subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as cost. The date of cross-examination of PW1 will be fixed by the learned Trial Court.

¶20

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed; impugned order dated 2.9.2011 (Annexure P-2) is set aside with the above observations.

¶21

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶22

18.10.2011 gsv

Manwinder Singh @ Maninder Singh & Ors. v. Baltej Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manwinder Singh @ Maninder Singh & Ors. v. Baltej Singh & 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

Sukhbir Singh Vs Babu Ram and Ors.

Rajni and Others Vs Sukhjeet Singh @ Sukha and Another

Harmesh Devi & Ors. Vs Kushal Kumar & Ors.

Kamla Devi Vs Birbal and Others

Subhashni Verma Vs Mandeep Singh and Others

Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs Joga Singh & Ors.