High Court modified an impugned order dismissing an affixage application by allowing the petitioner-defendant one opportunity to conclude evidence subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 costs to respondents.
Modification of order to allow petitioner one opportunity to conclude evidence upon payment of Rs. 5,000 costs to respondents.
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.
Civil Revision No. 986 of 2011
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 986 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 11.5.2012
Bhola Dass
.. Petitioner
versus
Mohan Lal and another
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The order dated 20.1.2011, which was under challenge in the present petition, was passed by the learned court below on an application filed by the petitioner-defendant whereby his prayer for sending the pronote to the Government Press, Nasik for examination of age of the stamps and the ink, was dismissed.
At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date the application filed by the petitioner was rejected, his evidence was also closed. He further submitted that he restricts his prayer only to the extent of grant of one opportunity to him to conclude his evidence as because of filing of the application in question, he could not lead other evidence.
Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs fairly submitted that he does not have any objection if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, however, the same should be subject to payment of costs.
Considering the fair stand of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 20.1.2011 is modified to the extent that evidence of the petitioner shall not be treated as closed and he shall be granted one
Civil Revision No. 986 of 2011
(2)
opportunity for concluding his evidence. However, the same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as cost to the respondents-plaintiffs, by way of bank draft.
The petition stands disposed of.
11.5.2012 vs
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner-defendant should be granted an opportunity to conclude his evidence after the refusal of an application for affixing age-stamp examination.
Whether subject to the grant of one opportunity to conclude evidence, costs should be paid to the respondents.
Bhola Dass
Mohan Lal
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
