Allowed

Harsh Sharma @ Happy v. Raj Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2019CR/4172/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision petition filed to set aside orders refusing to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination. The court observed the plaintiff side failed to conclude evidence and allowed the petition, setting aside lower court orders and granting one opportunity for cross-examination subject to cost deposit.

What did the court decide?

Orders of 08.04.2019 and 23.04.2019 set aside. Petitioner granted one opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- cost.

Harsh Sharma @ Happy Vs Raj Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

C. R No. 4172 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C. R No. 4172 of 2019 Date of decision : 09.07.2019

Harsh Sharma @ Happy

....Petitioner

versus

Raj Kumar and ors.

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Varun Katyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in this petition is to order dated 08.04.2019 and 23.04.2019 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Kalka and for recalling PW1 namely Raj Kumar to enable the petitioner to re-examine him.

¶15

At the very outset, learned counsel has referred to zimini orders (P-1 colly) to show that plaintiffs/respondents failed to conclude their evidence despite taking 13 opportunities as observed in orders dated 29.05.2018, 29.08.2018, 24.09.2018, 23.10.2018 and 19.12.2018. It was only on 29.01.2019 P.W.1 was present but was not cross examined and the matter was adjourned to 11.02.2019 and on that date, he was partly crossexamined. The remaining cross examination was deferred to 25.02.2019. On 25.02.2019, the petitioner sought an adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 19.03.2019 and on 19.03.2019 no PWs were present and the case was adjourned to 08.04.2019 but on 08.04.2019, vide impugned order dated 08.04.2019, the cross examination of P.W.1 Raj Kumar was

¶16

Gaurav Arora 2019.07.12 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

¶18

C. R No. 4172 of 2019

¶19

considered as NIL and the matter was adjourned to 23.04.2019 for remaining plaintiff's evidence. Further the application of the petitioner for recalling P.W.1 for cross examination has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2019.

¶20

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the defendant/petitioner was always ready and willing to cross examine P.W.1 Raj Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that affidavit of the petitioner has been placed on record.

¶21

In view of the above factual position, the present revision petition stands allowed and orders dated 08.04.2019 and 23.04.2019 are set aside. The petitioner is granted one effective opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 Raj Kumar, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner before District Legal Services Authority, Panchkula.

¶22

09.07.2019 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE

¶23

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶24

Gaurav Arora 2019.07.12 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Harsh Sharma @ Happy v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Sharma @ Happy v. Raj Kumar and Others

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

Pritam Singh Vs Ved Parkash and Ors.

Avtar Singh and Another Vs the Executive Engineer

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kiranjeet Kaur and Others

Vikram Verma Vs Vijay Kumar Verma etc.

Gurjap Singh & Anr. Vs Harjit Kaur and Ors.

Prince through Father Amit Kuamr Vs Jasbir Singh and Others