Allowed

Amrik Singh v. Rachhpal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2013CR/3592/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Article 226 under Article 227 setting aside an order closing the petitioner-defendant's evidence. The court directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to join proceedings and conclude evidence at his own cost, imposing costs on him.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; direction to trial court to allow petitioner to complete evidence at his own cost subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 costs to other party.

Amrik Singh Vs Rachhpal Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

C.R No.3592 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.R No.3592 of 2013 Date of Decision: 30.05.2013

¶5

Amrik Singh s/o Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rachhpal Singh s/o Bachan Singh and others ....Respondents

¶8

BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present:Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.04.2013, vide which, the evidence of the petitioner-defendant has been closed by order.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sole defendantMohinder Singh expired on 09.01.2013 and because of his death, his counsel could not be contacted by the petitioner and hence, the impugned order was passed. An application for impleading the legal heirs of Mohinder Singh was also moved on 10.05.2013 which was allowed by the trial Court on the same day itself. Learned counsel also submits that the reasons and circumstances were beyond the reach of the petitioner and only because of that reason, his evidence was closed. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of evidence of the defendant, no justice would be done to the legal representatives of the deceased who are now on record.

¶14

I have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the

¶15

C.R No.3592 of 2013

¶16

¶17

petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as zimini orders on record.

¶18

Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 29.11.2003 against the defendant-Mohinder Singh. The present petitioner is the son of Mohinder Singh, who died on 09.01.2013. The evidence of the petitioner was closed by order after the death of Mohinder Singh. Even the legal representatives of the deceased-Mohinder Singh are already on record and the petitioner is one of the legal representative, who have challenged the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga.

¶19

After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of zimini orders and keeping in view the facts and circumstances as mentioned above and without issuing any notice to the other party as it may not only delay the proceedings before the trial Court unnecessarily and the other party will also have to bear the expenses of engaging a counsel. The evidence of the defendant-petitioner is necessary in the interest of justice and for the proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.

¶20

Hence, the present revision petition is allowed and the Order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga is set aside with a direction to the trial Court to allow the petitioner to join proceedings and he be awarded sufficient opportunity to conclude his evidence at his own cost subject to payment of costs of ` 10,000/- to be paid to the other party.

¶21

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶22

30.05.2013 gurpreet

Amrik Singh v. Rachhpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh v. Rachhpal Singh

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

Sandeep @ Sanjay Vs State of Haryana

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdial Singh and Ors. Vs Joga Singh

Raj Kumar @ Manak Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vijay Chawla & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another