The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order that treated cross-examination of a witness as nil due to the petitioner's failure to cross-examine. The court held the petition maintainable and issued costs.
The revision petition was dismissed; costs of Rs.10,000 imposed on the petitioner.
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.
C.R.No.217 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No. 217 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision :July 23, 2013
Nishan Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Harjinder Singh
....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present : Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent.
Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral)
Present revision is directed against the order passed by the court below whereby cross-examination of PW-4 has been treated as nil.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one opportunity be granted to the defendant-petitioner to cross-examine the witness namelyHarjinder Singh. According to him, PW-4 could not be examined due to reasons beyond the control of petitioner. Thus impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that petitioner had earlier moved revision petition before this court challenging the same order. Said revision was dismissed.Thus present revision is not maintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that suit for possession by way of specific
C.R.No.217 of 2013 (O&M) 2
performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 17.1.2007 was instituted by plaintiff-Harjinder Singh. On 16.4.2012, Harjinder Singh appeared in court as PW/4. Defendant, however, failed to cross-examine the said witness. Court thus treated cross-examination of PW/4 as nil and adjourned the case for remaining evidence of the plaintiff. Petitioner chose not to challenge the order. Instead he moved application for recalling the order dated 16.4.2012. His application was dismissed by the court on 19.11.2012. He challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision No.106 of 2013. Said revision petition was dismissed on 10.1.2013 by a detailed order (Annexure P/7). Under the circumstances, it is inexplicable how present revision is maintainable. No interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is called for.
Dismissed.
As revision petition is totally frivolous, costs of Rs.10,000/- are imposed. Out of amount already deposited with the Registry, Rs.5,000/- be remitted to High Court Legal Services Committee and remaining amount be sent to the court below to be paid to respondent-Harjinder Singh.
July 23, 2013 BB
( Rajan Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present revision petition is maintainable in light of the dismissal of the earlier application and Civil Revision No.106 of 2013.
Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is warranted to set aside the order treating cross-examination as nil.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 227 of the Constitution of indiaReferred¶19
Nishan Singh
Harjinder Singh
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
