Allowed

Bhagat Singh v. Anurag Properties & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2014CR/5964/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition under Article 226/227 seeking to set aside an order closing plaintiff's evidence due to lack of witness service, praying for one more chance to serve via dasti summons with costs.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.5.2014 setting aside; trial court granted one opportunity to serve witness via dasti summons within 15 days subject to costs of Rs. 1,000.

Bhagat Singh Vs Anurag Properties… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Revision No.5964 of 2014

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:4.9.2014

Bhagat Singh

.....Petitioner

Anurag Properties and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶14

Bhagat Singh-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against Anurag Properties etc.-respondents/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside/quashing of order dated 21.5.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad by which the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed by the Court order.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record and also the impugned order.

¶16

The interim orders have also been placed on record. As per interim order dated 31.1.2014, PW-4 did not bring the record, therefore, he was discharged for that day and bound down for 29.4.2014 as well as

¶17

for remaining evidence of plaintiff at his own responsibility. On that day,

¶18

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.11 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

C.R. No.5964 of 2014

¶20

[2]

¶21

no PW was present in the lower Court and no action has been taken by the Court to procure his presence. The evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad vide order 21.5.2014 by stating that it was the last opportunity and evidence is closed. On that day, two PWs were present and were examined.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner will conclude the evidence at his own responsibility, if one opportunity is given.

¶23

It is settled law that rights of the parties should be determined substantially on merit as far as possible and the Court should not go into the technicalities of law. No prejudice will be caused to the opposite party because the defendants-respondents can be compensated by way of costs.

¶24

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, if the impugned order dated 21.5.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, by which the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed, is not set aside, the plaintiff-petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.

¶25

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that one opportunity be granted to serve the witness through dasti summons, I accept this revision petition and set aside the order dated 21.5.2014. The learned trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the plaintiff, subject to payment of costs of `1,000/-, to serve the witness through dasti summons and if the witness is served, then the Court will

¶26

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.11 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

C.R. No.5964 of 2014

¶28

[3]

¶29

enforce his presence. It is further directed that number of clear 15 days be given to the plaintiff.

¶30

This order has been passed without giving notice to the respondents in the present case to avoid unnecessary delay and further to save their expenses. However, it is made clear that if the respondentsdefendants feel that this order has been obtained by misrepresentation, they can file an application before this Court for modification of this order etc. within two months from today.

¶31

September 4, 2014.

¶32

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶33

hsp

¶34

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.11 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Bhagat Singh v. Anurag Properties & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Singh v. Anurag Properties & Ors.

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

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ravinder Kaur Vs Ajaib Singh & Anr.

Jaibir Vs Sheela Devi

Subhash Vs Nar Singh & Ors.

Rajpal Vs Mukesh and Anr.

Ritu Verma and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.