Single-judge High Court revision petition allowing petitioner to examine a sole remaining handwriting expert with costs and plantation order.
Petitioner allowed one final opportunity to produce the sole witness, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 costs and planting 100 trees.
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.
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3217-2021
Date of Decision: 10.12.2021
HARDIAL SINGH
…Petitioner
Versus
GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
(Presence marked through video conference).
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner assails an order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which the evidence of petitioner/defendant No.4 has been closed by order of the court and also the order dated 01.12.2021, vide which, the application for recalling of order dated 04.10.2021 has been dismissed.
were given to defendant No.4 to adduce evidence and yet, it was not concluded on the ground that the counsel was un-well.
SHALINI BHATIA 19 opportunities were partly attributable to non-disposal of an application 2021.12.13 02:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
filed by defendant No.4, whereby he had prayed to the trial Court that handwriting expert be examined in order to adjudicate on the veracity of the agreement to sell, which is alleged to be forged and fabricated as per defendant No.4. He argues that on one hand, the said application was kept pending and on the other hand, as a bolt from the blue, evidence was closed stating that the defendant had failed to do so despite ample opportunities. He further submits that petitioner will suffer irreparable loss if the petitioner is not allowed to examine the handwriting expert.
7 Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to
issue notice to the respondents as no prejudice would be caused to them. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.13 02:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. Petitioner shall be allowed one final opportunity to produce the sole witness, Sh. Kranti K. Sharma. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner fails to produce the said witness on the date given by the trial Court, no further time shall be granted and the Court below shall proceed in accordance with law.
| December 10, 2021 | (ARUN MONGA) | |
|---|---|---|
| gurpreet | JUDGE | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned: | Yes/No | |
| Whether reportable: | Yes/No |
SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.13 02:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be granted additional opportunity to examine a handwriting expert after evidence was closed.
Whether the impugned order giving closure to evidence can be set aside in the interest of justice.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hardial Singh
Gurpreet Singh and Others
Arun Monga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
