Held a civil revision petition under Article 227, allowing it to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to complete remaining evidence in the trial court.",
Trial court directed to grant one more effective opportunity to plaintiff-petitioner for remaining evidence subject to payment of `5,000/- costs.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.3094 OF 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 22nd MAY 2012
Ram Pal
…. Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish & others
…. Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.13601-CII of 2012
Allowed as prayed for.
CIVIL REVISION NO.3094 OF 2012
Plaintiff Ram Pal has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 30.04.2012 Annexure P- 1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal thereby closing evidence of plaintiff petitioner by Court order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contended that only five opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order and plaintiff-petitioner was present as his own witness on two dates of hearing and even his examination-in-chief was recorded on one date of hearing but his cross-examination was deferred on two dates of hearing on request of counsel for the defendants-respondents. It is submitted that besides cross-examination of the plaintiff himself, no other witness is to
CR No.3094 of 2012(O&M)
- 2 -
be examined and only documents are to be tendered. Accordingly another adjournment is prayed for remaining evidence of the plaintiff.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the plaintiffpetitioner for his remaining evidence in the aforesaid circumstances. The plaintiff-petitioner did not appear as his witness on four dates of hearing in all, but he appeared on two dates of hearing when adjournment was granted on the request of opposite counsel.
I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to defendants/respondents so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them.
The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the trial Court is directed to give only one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence as mentioned hereinbefore, subject to payment of `5,000/- as costs precedent.
22nd May, 2012 ‘raj’
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant another opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to complete his evidence in the pending suit under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Ram Pal
Jagdish & others
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
