Allowed

Mohinder Singh v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana Trough Its Commissioner

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Feb 2016CR/1516/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition allowed. The Hon'ble Court set aside orders closing the petitioner's evidence and dismissed the application for recall, granting two opportunities to examine one witness on payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petitioner granted two opportunities to examine one witness (Kanungo), conditioned on payment of ₹5,000 costs.

Mohinder Singh Vs Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1516 of 2016

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.1516 of 2016 Date of decision:27.02.2016

Mohinder Singh

... Petitioner

Vs.

Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶12

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present:Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the order dated 07.10.2015, whereby, his evidence has been closed by order, as well as, to the order dated 18.01.2016, vide which the application seeking recalling of the order dated 07.10.2015, has been dismissed.

¶17

Mr. Suveer Sheokan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submits that in case, one opportunity is granted, he will conclude the evidence as he has to examine only one witness, namely, kanungo.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and appraised the paper book and of the view that no doubt, the petitioner-plaintiff was negligent in concluding the evidence. However, in order to advance justice and prevent miscarriage of

¶19

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.03.03 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶20

Civil Revision No.1516 of 2016

¶21

{1}

¶22

justice, I deem it appropriate to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioner to examine only one witness, namely, kanungo.

¶23

Keeping in view the aforementioned observations, the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff shall examine only one witness, namely, Kaungo, in accordance with law, subject to payment of costs of `5,000/- which shall be condition precedent.

¶24

Accordingly, revision petition stands allowed.

¶25

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶26

February 27, 2016 savita

¶27

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.03.03 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Mohinder Singh v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana Trough Its Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Singh v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana Trough Its Commissioner

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

M/S Gill Rice Mills Vs Punjab State Grains Procurements Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Chandigarh Administration and Anr. Vs Piara Singh and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs Poonam Devi and Ors.

Aerens Goldsouk International Limited Vs Usha Gupta & Others

Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs Amritpal Singh & Anr.

Mamta Gupta Vs M/S Jai Mata Sanitary & Hardware Store and Ors.