Allowed

Gurjant Singh v. Gurcharan Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012CR/307/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition invoking Article 227, the Court, noting the petitioner's repeated adjournment requests in the main proceedings, allowed the petition, set aside an order striking off evidence subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-, and disposed of the matter without issuing further notice.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned order striking off evidence set aside subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost precedent. No notice issued to respondent.

Gurjant Singh Vs Gurcharan Singh and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 307 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 307 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : January 16, 2012

¶6

Gurjant Singh .... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Gurcharan Singh and others .... Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. P. S. Guliani, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

Gurjant Singh, who is respondent no.1 before Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission (in short – the Sikh Commission) in petition filed by Gurcharan Singh – respondent no.1 herein (petitioner before the Sikh Commission) has filed the instant revision petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sikh Commission thereby striking off the evidence (defence ?) of the petitioner herein.

¶14

Witnesses Kuldip Singh and Gurcharan Singh were present on the said date. The petitioner herein had been burdened with cost of

¶15

C. R. No. 307 of 2012

¶16

¶17

Rs.1,000/- on 12.12.2011 – the preceding date because both these witnesses were also present on 12.12.2011, when counsel for respondents prayed for adjournment. However, on 23.12.2011, the petitioner herein did not pay the cost amount of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, his evidence was struck off. Statement of Kuldip Singh – witness was recorded.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶19

case file.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner prays for only one opportunity for cross-examination of Kuldip Singh – witness and for cross-examination of other witnesses, who may be examined.

¶21

I have carefully considered the contention.

¶22

Perusal of the zimni orders of the learned Sikh Commission, as reproduced in the revision petition, reveals that counsel for the petitioner herein has sought many adjournments for examination of the witnesses, who were coming present on every date of hearing. It appears that keeping in view the said conduct of the petitioner herein, learned Sikh Commission was compelled to pass the impugned order.

¶23

Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the petitioner on payment of heavy cost because otherwise, the petitioner herein would not be able to contest the petition filed against him before learned Sikh Commission by respondent no.1 herein.

¶24

C. R. No. 307 of 2012

¶25

¶26

I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondent no.1 herein (petitioner before the Sikh Commission) so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the main petition pending before the Sikh Commission and also to save respondent no.1 herein of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to him.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by learned Sikh Commission is set aside regarding striking off the evidence (defence ?) of petitioner herein, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost precedent.

¶28

January 16, 2012

¶29

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶30

monika

Gurjant Singh v. Gurcharan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjant Singh v. Gurcharan Singh and 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

Balwan Singh Vs Inder Singh

Zora Singh Vs Harpreet Singh

Municipal Council Rewari Vs Munna Lal and Ors.

B.M. Fredrick Vs Phalwas Masih and Ors.

Satya Devi @ Satya Rani & Ors. Vs Usha Jaidka & Anr.

M/S Chopra Brothers Vs State of Punjab and Anr.