Allowed

Banwari Nath and Others v. Gram Panchayat Lalwas and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Oct 2012CR/6191/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition under Article 227 sought to grant one more opportunity to examine a witness. The single-judge bench allowed the petition and directed the trial court to permit examination of one witness subject to costs, disposing of the matter without notice.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; Trial court directed to grant one more effective opportunity to examine plaintiff no. 2 subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 costs precedent.

Banwari Nath and Others Vs Gram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 6191 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 6191 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : October 17, 2012

¶6

Banwari Nath and others

¶7

.... Petitioners Vs.

¶8

Gram Panchayat and another .... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Jatin Hans, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have assailed orders dated 23.11.2011 and 18.09.2012, passed by the trial court. By the first order, evidence of plaintiffs was closed by court order, whereas by the second order, application of plaintiffs for giving another opportunity for examining the remaining witnesses has been dismissed.

¶15

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case

¶16

file.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more

¶18

¶19

C. R. No. 6191 of 2012

¶20

opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for examining only Satbir Nath – plaintiff no.2 as witness.

¶21

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer.

¶22

Perusal of impugned orders of the trial court reveals that

¶23

plaintiffs were granted eight opportunities in all for their evidence. However, stand of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.2 was also present on 23.11.2011 for appearing as witness and his affidavit had also been prepared, but after lunch break, when the case was taken up for remaining cross-examination of the witness Girdhari, counsel for the defendants stated that plaintiff no.2 would be cross-examined on the next date as it would take long time. Although this plea has been discarded by the trial court, yet I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs for examination of plaintiff no.2 as witness, subject to payment of costs.

¶24

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 defendants-respondents of the expenses they may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to them.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the

¶26

C. R. No. 6191 of 2012

¶27

¶28

plaintiffs for examination of plaintiff no.2 Satbir Nath only as witness, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs precedent.

¶29

October 17, 2012

¶30

monika

¶31

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Banwari Nath and Others v. Gram Panchayat Lalwas and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Nath and Others v. Gram Panchayat Lalwas and Another

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

Ranno Vs Khurshaidan and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Naranjan Singh and Ors.

Mohan Singh Vs Darshan Singh

(O&M) Jagtu Vs Suraj Mal and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Dhanakar Vs Birbal and Anr.

Rajinder Singh and Anr. Vs Sant Kaur