Allowed

M/S Babu Ram Jagdish Rai v. Gurdev Kaur & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2012CR/2961/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision under Article 227 challenged order closing petitioner's evidence. Court noted delays were mutual but allowed one final opportunity for cross-examination of two witnesses subject to payment of court costs as indulgence.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22.3.2012 set aside; petitioner allowed one opportunity for cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 upon payment of ₹5,000 costs.

M/S Babu Ram Jagdish Rai Vs Gurdev… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2961 of 2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2961 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 30.5.2012

¶6

M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Rai

¶7

..... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Gurdev Kaur and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. Inder Jeet Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶14

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶15

Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside of order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the learned court below, vide which evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the Court.

¶16

The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for recovery of ` 3,00,000/- filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Balvir Singh was the customer of the plaintiff and he took a cash loan. After the death of Balvir Singh, the respondents have inherited his estate. To recover the loan amount, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the present suit, which is now being contested by the respondents. After filing of written statement, the issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 22.1.2010. Thereafter, the case remained pending for different dates of hearing but the witnesses could not be examined as either the witness of the plaintiff was not present or Presiding officer was on leave or lawyers were on strike and on account of pendency of application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. On 7.10.2011, examination-in-chief of three witnesses was recorded,

¶18

Civil Revision No. 2961 of 2012

¶19

(2)

¶20

however, their cross-examination was deferred for 14.1.2012 on the request of counsel for the defendants/respondents. On 14.1.2012, cross-examination of PW2 Shiv Dayal was concluded and the case was adjourned to 27.2.2012, on which date also the witness could not be examined and the case was adjourned to 22.3.2012, on which date the learned court below passed the impugned order closing the evidence of the petitioner. It was submitted that examination-in-chief of PW1 Nitya Nand and PW2 Shiv Dayal has already been recorded and only their cross-examination is left and for that one effective opportunity be granted. The evidence of the defendants is yet to start.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents / defendants submitted that numerous opportunities have been granted to the petitioner by the learned court below. Aim of the petitioner is only to harass the respondents by delaying the proceedings. The submission is that since the petitioner has availed number of opportunities, the order 22.3.2012 passed by the court below be upheld.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

¶23

The petitioner cannot be stated to be at fault solely, considering the zimni orders reproduced in the paper-book. A perusal of the zimni orders shows that the case was not adjourned only on the requests of the petitioner rather the same was adjourned some times on account of nonavailability of the Presiding officer as well as on request of counsel for respondents/ defendants or on account of absence of the PWs to be crossexamined. Earlier the application filed by the petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC also remained pending. It cannot be said that the petitioner was delaying the matter. As a matter of indulgence, the petitioner deserves to be granted one opportunity to conclude his evidence.

¶24

In view of the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 22.3.2012, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, which shall be cross-examination of PW1 Nitya Nand and PW2 Shiv Dayal. The same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as costs to the defendants/

¶25

Civil Revision No. 2961 of 2012

¶26

(3)

¶27

respondents by way of bank draft. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to do the needful on the date fixed.

¶28

The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated

¶29

above.

¶30

30.5.2012 vs.

¶31

( Rajesh Bindal) Judge

M/S Babu Ram Jagdish Rai v. Gurdev Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Babu Ram Jagdish Rai v. Gurdev Kaur & Ors.

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

Jai Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh

Ravinder Kumar Vs Ramphal and Anr.

Punsup Vs M/S Manohar Lal Ajay Kumar

Joginder Singh & Anr. Vs Ajay Goyal & Ors.

Paramjit Singh and Another Vs Jagjit Kaur and Another

Manjeet Kaur Vs Mohinder Singh