Allowed

Amarjit Kaur v. Paramjit Kaur etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2012CR/6221/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL judge allowed a revision petition seeking a chance to cross-examine the plaintiff. The court directed the trial court to grant one more opportunity but imposed heavy costs for the petitioner's counsel's repeated non-appearance and the belated filing of the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; trial court to grant one more cross-examination opportunity subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 costs precedent.

Amarjit Kaur Vs Paramjit Kaur etc. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 6221 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 6221 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : October 18, 2012

¶6

Amarjit Kaur .... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Paramjit Kaur and another .... Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial court, whereby cross-examination of respondent no.1-plaintiff Paramjit Kaur (PW-4) has been treated as `Nil' on behalf of defendant no.2-petitioner Amarjit Kaur.

¶14

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for cross-examination of the plaintiff.

¶15

C. R. No. 6221 of 2012

¶16

¶17

I have carefully considered the matter.

¶18

Perusal of impugned order reveals that the case was called five times by the trial court, but counsel for defendant no.2-petitioner did not turn up. The trial court even sent the Peon of the Court thrice to the seat of the counsel, but even then, the counsel did not bother to appear in the trial court. This conduct of the counsel is highly reprehensible and is strongly condemned.

¶19

Having said as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one opportunity is granted to defendant no.2-petitioner for cross-examination of plaintiff, subject to payment of very heavy costs. Defendant no.2-petitioner has to be subjected to heavy costs because of aforesaid conduct of her counsel and also because the instant revision petition has been filed belatedly i.e. after more than four months of the impugned order and also because the suit is being delayed on account of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner and her counsel, although the suit relates to vast area of land.

¶20

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondent no.1-plaintiff so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save respondent no.1-plaintiff of the financial burden she may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to her.

¶21

C. R. No. 6221 of 2012

¶22

¶23

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to defendant no.2petitioner for cross-examination of plaintiff-respondent no.1 Paramjit Kaur (PW-4), subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs precedent.

¶24

October 18, 2012

¶25

monika

¶26

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Amarjit Kaur v. Paramjit Kaur etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Kaur v. Paramjit Kaur etc.

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

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

Banwari Nath and Others Vs Gram Panchayat Lalwas and Another

Rajinder Kumar Dhanakar Vs Birbal and Anr.

Gurdev Singh Vs Punjab Wakf Board

(O&M) Sher Singh and Anr. Vs Dadri Education Society and Ors.

M/S Sham Singh Thakur Vs Ravinder Kumar Jain