Partly allowed

Lakhmi Chand v. Ishwar Chand & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Oct 2012CR/2927/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an order closing petitioner's evidence, allowing one opportunity to tender relevant evidence at own risk but refused permission to examine a handwriting expert absent foundation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one opportunity to tender evidence at own cost; cross-examination of handwriting expert refused without prior foundation.

Lakhmi Chand Vs Ishwar Chand & Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.2927 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.2927 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 17.10.2012

¶5

Lakhmi Chand s/o Puran s/o Churia r/o village Geong presently residing in the bera situated opposite Vishnu Agro, Dhand Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ishwar Chand aged 65 years s/o Prem Chand r/o Kaithal Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. AK Nirwani, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶15

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶16

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶17

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶18

The petitioner who was the defendant in suit is aggrieved against the order closing his evidence and refusing an opportunity to the petitioner to tender the evidence of handwriting expert. The trial Court had observed that the case was pending for 4 years with no steps having been taken to summon the handwriting expert or even producing the list of witnesses which the defendant was planning to examine and he could not merely take the plaintiff by surprise and prolong the

¶19

[2]

¶20

CR No.2927 of 2012(O&M)

¶21

proceedings. The Court observed that the plaintiff was a senior citizen and the case would require immediate disposal.

¶22

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the first occasion when the defendant was examined was only on 19.04.2012 in part and at the next hearing the cross-examination was completed. The case had been pending for no wrongful conduct of the defendant. I will accepted the plea but I still tried to elicit from the counsel as to reason why the defendant was trying to examine the handwriting expert. This is a suit for specific performance where the agreement of sale is admitted but it is contended that it was not intended to be treated as an agreement of sale but only a loan transaction. The petitioner is now to contend that after the alleged agreement, there had been a settlement of account when the plaintiff received some money from the defendant and there was no subsisting liability on the defendant. To a query whether the alleged receipt said to have been issued by the plaintiff was brought out in the pleading or confronted to the plaintiff in his cross-examination, the counsel states that the document was not produced or confronted to the plaintiff. In a situation where the defendant has not given the list of witnesses and he has also not confronted the document said to have been executed by the plaintiff, it shall be impermissible for the defendant to take time for production of

¶23

[3]

¶24

CR No.2927 of 2012(O&M)

¶25

handwriting expert for proving the alleged signature of the plaintiff when the document was still not produced before the Court. The defendant shall have no such permission to examine an expert without making any foundation for the same at the trial.

¶26

The counsel states that the petitioner be permitted to produce any other evidence which is relevant to the case. The petitioner is granted one opportunity to tender his evidence at his own cost and risk. The production of relevant evidence will be a matter to be left to trial Judge to consider.

¶27

The impugned order stands modified to the above extent and the trial progressed in accordance with law in the light of the directions given above.

¶28

17^th October, 2012 Rajan

¶29

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

Lakhmi Chand v. Ishwar Chand & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhmi Chand v. Ishwar Chand & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Mohd.Hamid Vs Sadanand

Dhanpati Devi Vs Anju Rani and Ors.

Hitesh Bansal Vs Parul Bansal

Madhu Chamoli Vs A.N. Bahuguna and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Yudhvir

(O&M) Hans Raj Vs Nathu Ram & Anr.