Allowed

Harbhajan Singh v. Lakhwinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2012CR/868/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the trial court to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. The court held that procedural limits in Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC should be followed with flexibility to advance justice, imposing a cost precedent of Rs. 5,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to grant one more effective opportunity for petitioner's evidence on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost precedent.

Harbhajan Singh Vs Lakhwinder Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 868 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 868 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : February 10, 2012

¶6

Harbhajan Singh .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Lakhwinder Singh and others .... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

Harbhajan Singh – defendant no.1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-1), thereby closing evidence of defendant no.1-petitioner by Court order and also impugning order dated 28.01.2012 (Annexure P-2), thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 moved by defendant no.1-petitioner for additional evidence, both orders passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

¶16

C. R. No. 868 of 2012

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner prays that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for his evidence at own responsibility, on payment of cost.

¶19

I have carefully considered this prayer.

¶20

Perusal of the file reveals that in all, six effective opportunities were granted to defendant no.1-petitioner for his evidence, spread over a small period of about three months, before closing his evidence by Court order. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. However, this provision being rule of procedure, has been interpreted to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. Rules of procedures are hand-maids of justice and are, therefore, supposed to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. A lis should be decided on merits instead of default of any party.

¶21

Keeping in view all the circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to defendant no.1-petitioner for his evidence at own responsibility, on payment of cost.

¶22

I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the plaintiffs of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if

¶23

C. R. No. 868 of 2012

¶24

¶25

notice thereof is issued to them.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to defendant no.1-petitioner for his evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent, in addition to the cost, which had been imposed by the trial court for earlier adjournments.

¶27

February 10, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Harbhajan Singh v. Lakhwinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan Singh v. Lakhwinder Singh and Ors.

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

Sumer Singh Vs Hardo @ Harwati @ Messarti and Others

Air Impact India Ltd. and Ors. Vs Hfc and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs M/S H.M.T. Ltd. and Ors.

Puran Chand Vs Panna Lal and Ors.

Rukhman Vs Bala Dutt Sharma and Ors.

Kashmir Singh Vs Punjab Agro Food Grains Corp. Ltd.