High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's order closing evidence, directing the trial court to provide the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiffs' witnesses.
Impugned order setting aside; trial court directed to grant cross-examination opportunity.
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
Civil Revision No. 2617 of 2011 Date of decision : January 05, 2012
Surjit Singh
....Petitioner
versus
Balwinder Kaur and others
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. KS Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate, for the respondents
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Defendant Surjit Singh has filed this revision petition impugning order dated 5.3.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar whereby evidence of plaintiffs/respondents was closed by court order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
Examination-in-chief of two witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs was recorded on 29.8.2008 and again on 24.1.2011 but their crossexamination was never recorded. In the impugned order the trial court has observed that two witnesses PW1 and PW2 are present and examined. However, counsel for the parties state that the said witnesses were never
Civil Revision No. 2617 of 2011
-2-
cross-examined. In view thereof, counsel for the respondents has no objection to prayer of the defendant-petitioner if permission is granted for cross-examination of the said witnesses.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 5.3.2011 passed by learned trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to defendantpetitioner for cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall be responsible to produce the said witnesses in the trial court for their cross-examination.
( L.N. Mittal ) January 05, 2012 Judge 'dalbir'
Surjit Singh
Balwinder Kaur and others
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
