This judgment allows a revision petition seeking recall of an order closing petitioner's evidence. The court set aside the impugned order, granted one opportunity to conclude evidence on payment of stakes.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner granted one opportunity to conclude evidence on payment of Rs. 5000 costs as condition precedent.
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.
C.R. No.5379 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.5379 of 2016
Date of Decision.23.08.2016
Kanwar Pal
.......Petitioner
Vs.
Pritam Singh and another ........Respondents
Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The petitioner/applicant-defendant is aggrieved of the order dated 08.07.2016, whereby, evidence of applicant-defendant in application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been closed.
Mr. M.L. Sainai, Advocate for the petitioner submits that in case, one opportunity is granted, he will conclude the evidence of two witnesses, one is bailiff, by taking the assistance of the Court.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book and of the view that no doubt, the petitioner/applicant-defendant was negligent in concluding the evidence. However, in order to advance justice and prevent miscarriage of justice, I deem it appropriate to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude the evidence.
Keeping in view the aforementioned observations, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioners-defendant shall conclude the evidence of aforementioned two witnesses in accordance with law subject to payment of
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.30 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No.5379 of 2016
-2-
costs of `5000/- which shall be condition precedent. If the costs is not paid as directed, the order passed already by the court below shall stand restored. If the application is moved for summoning the witnesses, the Court shall permit the petitioner to obtain dasti summons and ensure that the witnesses are served and examined on the date fixed. If the witnesses do not show respect and regard to summons of Court, it can proceed as per the provisions of Order 16 Rule 12 CPC.
The impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is
allowed.
| August 23, 2016 | (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|---|
| Pankaj* | ||
| Whether reasoned/spea | king Yes |
|
| Whether reportable | No |
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.30 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted a fresh opportunity to conclude evidence after it was closed in the lower court.
Whether the impugned order closing the petitioner's evidence be set aside.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanwar Pal
Pritam Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
