Allowed

Narotam Kumar v. Raghunath Mandir & Dharmashala etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2011CR/6445/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order that declined an opportunity to lead evidence. The court directed the trial court to grant one chance to the petitioner-defendant to prove the additional issue at his own risk, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as cost, without issuing immediate notice to the opposite party to avoid harassment, leaving liberty to the

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-defendant to lead evidence at his own responsibility upon payment of Rs. 5,000 as cost; no immediate notice to opp

Narotam Kumar Vs Raghunath Mandir… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 2, 2011

Narotam Kumar

.....Petitioner

Raghunath Mandir and Dharamshala Arorvansh Sabha, Ratia and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.25456-CII of 2011

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011

¶17

Petitioner-defendant no.2 has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.9.2011, Annexure P9, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Ratia, vide which opportunity to lead evidence in support of the additional issue, which has been framed on the application of petitioner-defendant no.2, has been declined to him.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

¶19

The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though additional issue was framed by learned trial Court on the application of petitioner-defendant no.2 and, however, no opportunity was

¶20

Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M) -2-

¶21

given to him to adduce evidence on the additional issue and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It has been contended that counter-claim has been claimed by petitioner-defendant in the written statement and that only one opportunity be granted to him to lead evidence at his own responsibility.

¶22

Perusal of impugned order passed by learned trial Court shows that opportunity was not given to petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence by observing that he has already availed number of opportunities to lead evidence in support of the case including the counter claim and evidence was already led by him.

¶23

However, in view of the fact that additional issues were framed regarding counter claim, one opportunity can be granted to petitionerdefendant no.2 to adduce evidence at his own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost.

¶24

Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence at his own responsibility to prove additional issues, onus of which was upon him, subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent.

¶25

Disposed of accordingly.

¶26

However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur , CWP No.9563 of

¶27

Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:-

¶30

“ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitionerManagement before the Labour Court/Labour-cumConciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.”

¶31

However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order.

¶32

meenu

¶33

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶34

2.11.2011

Narotam Kumar v. Raghunath Mandir & Dharmashala etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narotam Kumar v. Raghunath Mandir & Dharmashala etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piara Singh and Ors. Vs Kashmir Singh and Anr.

Jaswant Singh Vs Dilbagh Singh and Ors.

M/S Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ashwani Kumar

Gurmit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dharam Pal Chhabra Vs Radha Kapoor

Hpgcl & Anr. Vs M/S Satluj Construction Ltd.