Allowed

Bhagat Singh v. Satender Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2012CR/5186/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the revision over the trial Court's closure of evidence, holding that the trial Court erred in refusing the petitioner permission to examine private witnesses who attested to a compromise deed produced by examined official witnesses.

What did the court decide?

set aside the trial Court order; direct it to permit examination of witnesses Ramphal and Jagdish and other material witnesses for the plaintiff.

Bhagat Singh Vs Satender Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.R. No.5186 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.5186 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: November 22, 2012

BHAGAT SINGH

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

SATENDER KUMAR

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.

¶12

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No PRESENT: MR.KULVIR NARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. M.JEYAPAUL, J.

¶13

The plaintiff aggrieved by the closure of evidence on his side by the trial Court has come forward with the present revision.

¶14

There was an earlier round of revision preferred by the very same revision petitioner wherein a direction was issued to the trial Court to give one more opportunity to the revision petitioner to examine two official witnesses as prayed for by the revision petitioner. The official witnesses had brought the record of summons and the same contained the compromise deed dated 14.8.2007. The revision petitioner sought permission of the trial Court to examine two witnesses, namely Ramphal and Jagdish to the said compromise deed dated 14.8.2007.

¶15

The trial Court rejected the plea for examination of Ramphal and Jagdish on the ground that the names of those witnesses did not find a place in the list of witnesses and permission was granted by this Court in the earlier revision filed by the revision petitioner only to examine two official

¶16

C.R. No.5186 of 2012 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

witnesses.

¶19

I heard the submissions made on either side.

¶20

I find that that trial Court has gone wrong in not permitting the revision petitioner to examine Ramphal and Jagdish who were witnesses to the compromise deed dated 14.8.2007, which formed part of the records summoned and produced by the official witnesses who were examined on 24.7.2012.

¶21

Even if some of the witnesses had not been cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses, the trial Court in its venture to dispense substantial justice to the litigant shall give opportunity to the party concerned to lead evidence to substantiate the case projected by him.

¶22

In the earlier revision filed by the revision petitioner, the only question which came up for consideration before this Court was whether permission should be granted to the revision petitioner to examine two official witnesses. The plea for examination of private witnesses Ramphal and Jagdish who were witnesses to the compromise deed which was produced by those two official witnesses on examination on 24.7.2012 had not come up for consideration before this Court in the earlier revision.

¶23

Denial of permission to examine the witnesses to the compromise would amount to denial of fair trial. The plaintiff who has come forward with a strong plea in the plaint is entitled to substantiate such plea by producing material witnesses. When the compromise was the core subject matter of the suit, denial to examine the witnesses to that compromise would virtually foreclose the effective steps taken by the

¶24

C.R. No.5186 of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

plaintiff to prove his case. Further, it has been demonstrated that Ramphal and Jagdish were brought by the revision petitioner even on 3.2.2012, when the earlier prayer for examination of two official witnesses was declined by the trial Court.

¶27

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give opportunity to the plaintiff to examine Ramphal and Jagdish and also material witnesses, if any, on the side of the plaintiff.

¶28

The revision is accordingly allowed.

¶29

November 22, 2012 ( M.JEYAPAUL ) Gulati JUDGE

Bhagat Singh v. Satender Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Singh v. Satender Kumar

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

Shivraj Singh Vs Jaskaran and Another

Bal Krishan @ Dimpy Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Sumesh Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Pooja Ghai Vs M/S Preview Fashions & Ors.

Pooja Ghai Vs M/S Ganga Knit Ltd. and Ors.