Dismissed

Vandana Tripathi v. Ranjana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2012CR/660/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petitioner's request for another opportunity to lead evidence. The Court held that the trial court had already granted ten adjournments, exceeding the statutory limit, and thus there was no merit in interfering with the order to close evidence.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was found to be meritless and was dismissed in limine; the order of the trial court closing evidence was upheld.

Vandana Tripathi Vs Ranjana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 660 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 660 of 2012 Date of Decision : February 03, 2012

¶5

Vandana Tripathi .... Petitioner Vs. Ranjana .... Respondent

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Present : Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

Defendant Vandana Tripathi has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula, thereby closing evidence of the defendant-petitioner by court order.

¶12

Copies of zimni orders passed by the trial court, filed today in Court by counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to order of the preceding date, are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶14

C. R. No. 660 of 2012

¶15

¶16

case file.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for remaining evidence at own responsibility. It was pointed out that official from Estate Office, Chandigarh had been summoned for 12.01.2012, but he had sent request that he had to appear as witness in some other case in a Court at Chandigarh. It was thus thus argued that the witness could not appear in the trial court in this case for no fault of the defendant-petitioner, and therefore, one more opportunity should be granted. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Kapoor and another vs. Kusum Lata Kapoor and others reported as 2010 AIR (SC) 2733 .

¶18

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted.

¶19

Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court reveals that defendant-petitioner was granted ten effective opportunities for her evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. The aforesaid provision, being of procedural law, may not be applied with extreme rigidity. Some flexibility may be read in the said provision. However, at the same time, the statutory provision cannot be completely frustrated or nullified by granting numberless opportunities. In

¶20

C. R. No. 660 of 2012

¶21

¶22

the instant case, as against the limit of three opportunities, set by the aforesaid provision, the defendant-petitioner was granted ten effective opportunities by the trial court, but in spite thereof, she failed to lead her remaining evidence. The aforesaid provision, limiting the number of adjournments to three for evidence of a party, has been introduced with salutary objective of curtailing delay in disposal of cases. Such delay is inviting widespread criticism and rightly so. Such salutary provision cannot be bye-passed by granting another opportunity to the defendant-petitioner for her evidence.

¶23

The contention that official from Estate Office could not appear in the trial court on 12.01.2012 is also misconceived and meritless. It was ninth effective opportunity for defendant's evidence on 12.01.2012 and third last opportunity. On earlier dates of hearing fixed for evidence of the defendant, the said official witness had not been summoned. Consequently, it was responsibility of the defendant-petitioner to have produced the said witness. Moreover, in spite thereof, the trial court granted another adjournment on 12.01.2012 and adjourned the case to 25.01.2012 for remaining evidence of the defendant, but even on 25.01.2012, the said witness or any other witness was not produced by the defendant. Consequently, request of the said witness for 12.01.2012 has no bearing when defendant-petitioner was granted another opportunity to lead her remaining evidence on 25.01.2012. For the same reason, judgment in the

¶24

C. R. No. 660 of 2012

¶25

¶26

case of Amrit Lal Kapoor (supra) is not applicable to the instant case.

¶27

In view of the discussion aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the trial court was left with no option, but to close the evidence of the defendant-petitioner by court order, having granted sufficient opportunities to the defendant-petitioner for her evidence. The revision petition is accordingly found to be meritless and is dismissed in limine.

¶28

February 03, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Vandana Tripathi v. Ranjana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Tripathi v. Ranjana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Baldev Vs Dev Singh

Janeshwar Dass Vs Krishan @ Krishan Lal and Ors.

Gurnam Singh & Ors. Vs Rupinder Singh

Suresh Kumar Vs Sanjana and Ors.

Anita Rani Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Megh Ram & Ors. Vs Koshal & Anr.