Partly allowed

Subhashni Verma v. Mandeep Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2011CR/6362/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Article 226 to set aside an order closing plaintiff's evidence after seven opportunities. The Court granted one final chance to lead evidence at the plaintiff's own risk without prejudice to defendants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.8.2011 set aside; one last opportunity granted to petitioner-plaintiff to conclude evidence at own responsibility; costs of rupees 10,000 awarded.

Subhashni Verma Vs Mandeep Singh and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No.6362 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.10.2011.

¶3

Dr.Subhashni Verma through her GPA Chander Kant

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Mandeep Singh and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶9

Present: Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶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 11.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order.

¶13

Learned counsel contends that the finding of the learned trial that the plaintiff has been granted seven effective opportunities to the petitioner/plaintiff but despite that the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence himself has not been examined so far is erroneous. Further contends that on the date of closing the evidence i.e. 11.8.2011, the petitioner examined one witness. Further contends that if the petitioner/ plaintiff is granted one more opportunity, it will not cause prejudice to the opposite party.

¶14

CR No. 6362 of 2011 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶17

case file.

¶18

The case is fixed for evidence of the defendants. The suit has been filed for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. If the petitioner/plaintiff is granted one last opportunity to conclude his evidence, it will not cause any prejudice to the defendants/respondents, as the case is fixed for evidence of the defendants/respondents. Nonexamination of the witnesses would materially affect the proper adjudication of the case and therefore, in the interest of justice one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead his evidence

¶19

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed; impugned order dated 11.8.2011 is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to conclude his entire evidence at his own responsibility, subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as cost. The trial Court will fix the date for evidence of the plaintiff.

¶20

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶21

18.10.2011 gsv

Subhashni Verma v. Mandeep Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhashni Verma v. Mandeep Singh and Others

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

Sukhbir Singh Vs Babu Ram and Ors.

Rajni and Others Vs Sukhjeet Singh @ Sukha and Another

Harmesh Devi & Ors. Vs Kushal Kumar & Ors.

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

Kamla Devi Vs Birbal and Others

Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs Joga Singh & Ors.