This revision petition questioned the High Court’s intervention under Article 226. The court directed the trial court to grant one more chance to examine a witness, Roor Singh, prioritizing justice over procedural delays.
Direction to trial court to grant one more opportunity to examine witness Roor Singh @ Roop Singh and 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
CR 7566 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision : December 17, 2012
Gurdit Singh and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
Ram Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs have prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court on 4.12.2012 whereby their evidence was closed and the case adjourned for evidence of the defendants.
A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that on 4.12.2012, Gurdit Singh-petitioner was cross-examined by the defendants. A request was made for adjournment so as to enable the plaintiffs to examine their remaining evidence. The request was declined on the ground that the issues were framed on 8.12.2009 and despite availing eight effective opportunities
CR 7566 of 2012(O&M)
-2-
including one last opportunity, the plaintiffs had miserably failed to conclude their evidence.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 29.11.2012, both the petitioners were present before the trial Court but their cross-examination was not recorded as the counsel for defendant No.2 was not present. On the next date, i.e. 4.12.2012, the cross-examination of Gurdit Singh was recorded. However, a request was made to the trial Court to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiffs to get the testimony of Roor Singh @ Roop Singh-petitioner recorded but the said request was turned down by the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioners have already examined their remaining evidence and only Roor Singh @ Roop Singh-petitioner remains to be examined and in case one more opportunity is granted to them, said Roor Singh @ Roop Singh would appear before the trial Court for the purpose of getting his testimony recorded.
Without commenting on the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners but keeping in view the interest of justice, this Court feels that one more opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioners so as to produce Roor Singh @ Roop Singh as their witness before the trial Court for getting his testimony recorded.
CR 7566 of 2012(O&M)
-3-
The revision is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiffs-petitioners to examine Roor Singh @ Roop Singh as their witness, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the contesting defendants.
Copy dasti on payment.
December 17, 2012 ajay-1
( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the trial Court to grant one more opportunity for examining a witness despite repeated adjournments.
Whether the interest of justice warrants an exception to the refusal of extending time for examination of witnesses.
Gurdit Singh and another
Ram Singh and others
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
