Allowed

Parshotam Das v. Chanchal Devi & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2013CR/1590/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed civil revision against order closing evidence due to absent official witness. Court reopened order conditional on payment of costs, directing issue of fresh summons for original register signature comparison.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside order reopened upon payment of costs; fresh summons to Registrar issued.

Parshotam Das Vs Chanchal Devi & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

C.R. No.1590 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.1590 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision.23.07.2013

¶6

Parshotam Das s/o Gurditta Mall r/o village Tarsikka, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar .....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chanchal Devi and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. K.S. Rekhi, advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶18

The revision is against the order closing the evidence of the defendant on the ground that on the day when the case was posted for production of a witness summoned from the Registrar's office, the witness was not present. The endorsement in the summon was that the witness had been under suspension. The defence is that the father had executed a Will and the admitted signature of the deceased was to be compared with the signature as found in the document filed by him in Court. The original Will itself was not in Court. However, the plaintiff was contending that the signature found on a photocopy must be taken for comparison with the signature found in the original document of sale. The original document of sale itself could not have been there with the Registrar's office. I understand, therefore, that although the Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.26 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

C.R. No.1590 of 2013

¶20

-2-

¶21

plaintiff was asking for comparison of the original sale deed, it should be understood as comparison with signature found in the register of sale at Registrar's office at the time of registration of the document of sale. To what extent this could really avail is a matter of evidence, for the comparison is not with the original Will but with reference to alleged signature found in photocopy of the Will.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent has very strong objection for the same. His objection, inter alia, is that the original Will is not there and the document which is sought to be summoned is not the original sale deed from the hands of the purchaser but from the Registrar's office. Although the objection is reasonable and appropriate, I do not want to deny the petitioner an opportunity to bring the best evidence in the given situation. This cannot be, however, done without adequately compensating the petitioner for the loss of time itself involved in this process. An action for comparison and summoning of witness must all be done even before the commencement of the trial. It is, however, the prevalent practice here that the list of witnesses are given only after the commencement of the trial and witnesses are also summoned only when one side is closed and the other side begins to bring his witnesses. This inevitably causes enormous delays and appropriate reparation for such delay shall be imposition of costs, which I assess at ` 10,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The order passed already shall be reopened only on payment of costs within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the costs are not paid, the order already passed shall stand restored.

¶23

The court shall issue summons again to the official witness at the

¶24

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.26 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

-3-

¶26

C.R. No.1590 of 2013

¶27

Registrar's office for production of the original register containing the alleged signature of Guruditta Mall in the original register entering the details of sale deed dated 22.04.1994 in favour of Jasbir Singh. There shall be only one opportunity for such an exercise.

¶28

The impugned order is set aside and the civil revision is allowed on the above terms. The petitioner shall also be liable to pay costs assessed at ` 5,000/- to the respondent for filing revision petition.

¶29

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶30

July 23, 2013 Pankaj*

¶31

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.26 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Parshotam Das v. Chanchal Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshotam Das v. Chanchal Devi & Ors.

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

Balbir Ingh and Anr. Vs Amolak Ram

H.S. Jatana Vs Dilbag Singh Sandhu and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs Shiv Singh & Anr.

Narpat Vs Partap Singh & Anr.

Mahesh Singh Vs Mahendra Singh and Ors.

Nishan Singh Vs Harjinder Singh