Allowed

Mepl Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. (Mmpl) v. Shailender Nath Gupta

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jun 2016CR/3955/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Amit Rawal allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order closing the petitioner-appellant's evidence, directing the trial court to grant one opportunity for cross-examination of two witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order dated 08.12.2015; directed trial court to grant opportunity for cross-examination of two witnesses.

Mepl Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. (Mmpl) Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CR No.3955 of 2016

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.3955 of 2016 Date of decision:02.06.2016

¶5

MEPL Maintenance Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. Shailender Nath Gupta ... Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

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

¶11

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present:Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 08.12.2015, whereby, its evidence has been closed by order.

¶16

Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that two witnesses have already been examined in chief but their cross examination was treated to be nil for alleged non-appearance. She submits that plaintiff is willing to produce aforesaid two witnesses for cross-examination and certain original documents photocopies of which have already been placed on record, needs to be tendered, in case, one opportunity may be granted subject to any terms and conditions which this Court deem fit.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and

¶18

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.06.03 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

CR No.3955 of 2016

¶20

{2}

¶21

appraised the paper book.

¶22

From the perusal of the file, it reveals that on many occasions, two witnesses have been appearing for cross examination but the defendant had sought time and axe has been fallen on the plaintiff for non-appearance on that particular date. I am of the view that in case, the petitioner-plaintiff is granted one opportunity for producing/offering two witnesses for crossexamination, ends of justice would be met. In order to advance justice and prevent miscarriage of justice, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to give one opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff for producing two witnesses for cross examination, in accordance with law and also to tender only those original documents photocopies of which have already been placed on record.

¶23

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 is set aside and the revision petition is allowed.

¶24

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶25

June 02, 2016 savita

¶26

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.06.03 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Mepl Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. (Mmpl) v. Shailender Nath Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mepl Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. (Mmpl) v. Shailender Nath Gupta

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

Vikas Talwar Vs Payal

Jagbir Singh Vs Mandeep Kaur

Sanjeev Kalyan Vs Jai Ram and Ors.

Soma Singh and Ors. Vs Mandeep Kaur and Ors.

M/S Shankar Rice Mills and Anr. Vs Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation Ltd.

National Highways Authority of India Vs State of Punjab & Ors.