The single judge allowed a revision petition filed by defendants challenging an order treating cross-examination as nil due to counsel's absence, granting them one opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff.
The impugned order is set aside, and one opportunity is granted to cross-examine the plaintiff upon payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs.
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.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.08.13 08:53I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
C.R. No.3595 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3595 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 6.8.2013
Bishop P.K Samanta Rao etc
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Joshil Rai
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioners-defendants.
Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)
Defendants are in revision assailing the order dated 22.4.2013 (P.2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar whereby the cross examination of PW1 has been treated as Nil due to the non-presence of the counsel for the defendants.
It is contended that the plaintiff-Joshil Rai (PW1)/respondent herein after tendering his affidavit in the examination in chief had not put in appearance on four successive dates for his cross examination. However, he presented himself on 22.4.2013. Counsel for the defendants due to his preoccupation in another Court could not present himself at the time of hearing of the suit resulting into passing of the impugned order. It is further submitted that soon after getting free from his pre-occupation in the Court, learned counsel had presented himself before the learned trial Court, however, by that time, the impugned order had been passed. It is lastly
C.R. No.3595 of 2013 (O&M) #2#
submitted that one opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff be granted lest the case of the defendants be seriously prejudiced.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order by stating that pre-occupation of the counsel is an after thought.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioners-defendants deserve to be granted one opportunity to complete the cross examination of the plaintiff as is material for just and effective decision of the lis between the parties.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the defendants/petitioners are granted one opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff (PW1) subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to be paid by way of demand draft to the plaintiff as a condition precedent. Trial Court shall fix a date for the cross examination of the plaintiff.
August 06, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the defendants should be granted one opportunity for the cross-examination of the plaintiff who appeared after successive adjournments.
Bishop P.K Samanta Rao etc
Joshil Rai
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
