Allowed

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sushil Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2012CR/2715/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed Civil Revision petition setting aside order treating cross-examination as nil, directed granting petitioner one opportunity on fixed date subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17.1.2012 treated as nil was set aside; one opportunity granted for cross-examination on 18.7.2012 subject to payment of rs. 2,500/- as costs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2715 of 2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2715 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 28.5.2012

¶6

Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs

Sushil Kumar

..... Petitioners

..... Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

None for the respondent despite service.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside of order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the learned court below, whereby cross-examination of PW1 has been ordered to be treated as nil.

¶15

The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent /plaintiff against the petitioner- Corporation.

¶16

For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the respondent / plaintiff for declaration and mandatory injunction on 28.9.2010. The case was fixed for the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff on 17.1.2012 and PW1 was present for crossexamination. The counsel for the petitioner corporation made a request to the Presiding Officer for taking up the case after some time as he was busy in other court. It was submitted that at about 12.15 P.M. due to mis-

¶17

Civil Revision No. 2715 of 2012

¶18

(2)

¶19

happening with some relative, the counsel for the petitioner-Corporation had to leave the court in emergency. Since none appeared for the Corporation, the cross-examination of the witness was ordered by the learned court below to be treated as nil. On 2.3.2012, when the counsel for the Corporation went to the court for cross-examination, he was informed about the aforesaid order. It was submitted that the plaintiff is the only witness. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will cross-examine PW1 on 18.7.2012, the date already fixed.

¶20

No one has appeared for the respondent despite service.

¶21

The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. The reason given by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to mis-happening with some relative of counsel for the petitioner-corporation before the court below, he was not present in court and the cross-examination of the witness was ordered to be treated as nil, cannot be said to be not genuine.

¶22

Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 17.1.2012, treating the cross-examination of PW1 as nil, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for crossexamination of PW1 on the date already fixed i.e. 18.7.2012, if the plaintiff appears in court on that date for his cross-examination or on the next date to be fixed by the court. The same shall be subject to payment of ` 2,500/- as cost, which shall be paid to the respondent-plaintiff by way of bank draft.

¶23

The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated

¶24

above.

¶25

28.5.2012 vs.

¶26

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sushil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sushil Kumar

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

Chander Mohan Nanda Vs Nikhil Lr of Kanta Nanda & Ors.

Rupinder Kaur Vs Kuldeep Kumar

Sangeeta Vs Mact Hisar

Kailasho Rani Vs Naranjan Nath

Jaswinder Singh and Other Vs Amarjit Singh

(O&M) Maneet Kaur Vs Devinderpal Singh