Allowed

Vipin Tyagi v. Sukhdev Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2012CR/249/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed revision petition under Article 227. Directed trial court to grant one more opportunity for evidence despite CPC limitation. Issued production warrant if petitioner remains in custody. Imposed Rs. 10,000 cost.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed. Trial court directed to grant one more opportunity for evidence. Rs. 10,000 cost precedent imposed. Production warrant allowed if petitioner remains in custody.

Vipin Tyagi Vs Sukhdev Singh — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 249 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 249 of 2012 Date of Decision : January 18, 2012

¶5

Vipin Kumar Tyagi .... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sukhdev Singh and another .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. S. K. S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶13

C. M. No. 1439-C-II of 2012 :

¶14

Allowed as prayed for.

¶15

C. M. No. 1440-C-II of 2012 :

¶16

Application is allowed and documents Annexures P-2 to P-15 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

Main Case :

¶18

Plaintiff Vipin Kumar Tyagi has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision petition to challenge order dated 06.12.2011 (Annexure P-1),

¶19

¶20

C. R. No. 249 of 2012

¶21

whereby evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed by court order.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶23

case file.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more effective opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility, on payment of cost.

¶25

Perusal of zimni orders of the trial court reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner was granted seven effective opportunities for his evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), not more than three opportunities are required to be given to a party for its evidence. However, this provision, being procedural, has to be complied with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity.

¶26

In the instant case, the petitioner himself has not appeared in the witness-box. He is said to be in custody in some criminal case since 09.11.2011.

¶27

Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed.

¶28

I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondents/defendants so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save respondents/defendants of the expenses they may

¶29

C. R. No. 249 of 2012

¶30

¶31

have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to them.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost precedent.

¶33

If the plaintiff-petitioner continues to be in custody, he may seek assistance of the trial court to seek his production in the Court through production warrant, but not more than one effective opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence.

¶34

January 18, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Vipin Tyagi v. Sukhdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Tyagi v. Sukhdev Singh

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

Shalu Sodhu & Anr. Vs Atma Ram & Ors.

Surjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Bhupinder Singh Waraich and Ors.

State of Haryana Thru D.C. Yamuna Nagar Vs Murti Mari Guga Peer Mandir

Kuldeep Vs Rajkapoor and Anr.

Subhash Chand Vs M/S Padam Chand Jain & Company

Haryana Wakf Board Vs Jaswinder Singh and Anr.