Single judge granted one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude evidence after setting aside the impugned order closing same, imposing costs of Rs. 5,000 as condition precedent.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner granted one opportunity to conclude evidence; costs of Rs. 5,000 imposed; revision allowed dispensing with notice.
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.14396 of 2018 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.14396 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision.21.12.2018
Simran Sharma
...Petitioner
Vs
Naresh Kumar ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 14.11.2018 (Annexure P-4), whereby, her evidence has been closed .
Mr. Ashok Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in case, one opportunity is granted, he will conclude the entire evidence.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that no doubt, the petitioner 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 petitioner shall conclude the evidence in accordance with law, subject to payment of costs of `5,000/- which shall be condition precedent. If the costs is not paid as directed, the order passed already by the court below shall stand restored.
The impugned order is set aside and the revision petition
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.21 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
C.R. No.14396 of 2018 (O&M)
is allowed, dispensing with notice to the respondent in order to save time and defray the cost of litigation.
| (A |
MIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|---|
| December 21, | 2018 | |
| Pankaj* | ||
| Whether Reasoned/Speaking | Yes/No | |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.21 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner who closed her evidence prematurely should be granted an opportunity to conclude it subject to costs.
Whether the summary judgment dismissing the revision petition should be set aside to allow evidence.
Simran Sharma
Naresh Kumar
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
