This revision petition challenges an order closing the defendant's evidence. The High Court disposed of the matter by directing the Trial Court to grant one final effective opportunity to lead evidence subject to payment of costs.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1635 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.3.2012.
Ristematic Estate Private Ltd.
--Petitioner
Versus
Gopi Chand Saini & others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Palwal, whereby the petitioner/defendant's evidence has been closed.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.2.2012 would reveal that as many as seven effective opportunities have been granted to the defendant and it was only thereupon that the order closing the evidence has been passed. I find no infirmity in the order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prays that one final opportunity may be granted to the petitioner/defendant to lead his evidence. The rules of procedure have been made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. As such, it would be in the interest of justice to grant one final opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to lead his entire evidence.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to the Trial Court to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to lead his evidence subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as
C.R. No. 1635 of 2012(O&M) -2costs to be paid to the plaintiff. It is, however, made clear that in case the present petitioner/defendant does not lead evidence on such opportunity, the impugned order dated 27.2.2012 shall remain operative.
Revision petition is disposed of, accordingly.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
14.3.2012. lucky
Ristematic Estate Private Ltd.
Gopi Chand Saini & others
Tejender Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
