Single judge dismissed revision petition challenging order in a recovery suit, holding no rebuttal issue existed and thus plaintiff could not lead evidence despite reserving right.
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.
CR No.1468 of 2016
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1468 of 2016 Date of decision:10.01.2019
Gulshan Ahuja
... Petitioner
Vs.
Shiv Shakti International
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 16.02.2016, whereby, an application submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff for leading rebuttal evidence in a suit for recovery of amount, has been dismissed.
Mr. Vivek Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even in the absence of rebuttal issue, once the plaintiff has reserved the right to rebut the evidence, same cannot be denied. He wanted to examine one Ramesh Munjal, to prove the transaction.
Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that reservation of right would pale into insignificance in the absence of rebuttal issue. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the issues extracted in para 3 of revision petition and thus,
SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.14 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.1468 of 2016
{2}
urged this Court for dismissal of petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Suri. For the sake of brevity, issues framed in the suit read as under:-
“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of amount Rs.2,85,480/- alongwith interest, as alleged?OPP
On plain and simple reading of the issues aforementioned, there
is no rebuttal issue. The petitioner-plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead the evidence in rebuttal despite the fact that he has reserved the right.
No ground for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
January 10, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.14 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Gulshan Ahuja
Shiv Shakti International
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
