Revision against Family Court orders closing the petitioner's evidence after nine opportunities including last and final opportunity, and dismissing his application to recall that closure. The High Court found no illegality or perversity, noting the petitioner had not paid costs and had delayed proceedings, and dismissed the revision.
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.
S. No.123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5576 of 2024 Date of Decision:24.09.2024 Prem Singh .....Pe--oner Vs. Kuldeep Kaur .....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. S.S. Nagra, Advocate for the pe��oner. ****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Pe��oner has approached this Court against the order dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure P.2) whereby his evidence was closed by learned Addi�onal Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur. Pe��oner also assails the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by learned Addi�onal Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur, whereby applica�on to recall the afore-said order dated 16.11.2023 was dismissed.
“ The respondent has filed reply to the applica�on under Sec�on 151 CPC filed by the pe��oner for grant of an opportunity to the pe��oner to lead his evidence. Copy supplied.
Heard on the abovesaid applica�on filed by the pe��oner for gran�ng him an opportunity for leading evidence on the grounds that the pe��oner who is serving in ITBP and was posted at Manipur, could not get leave on 16.11.2023. On that day he could not come up and his evidence was closed by order on
RENU 2024.09.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.5576 of 2024 -2-
account of of non appearance. The absence of the pe��oner on that day was neither inten�onal nor willful but due to the facts stated above. Therefore the applica�on be allowed.
In reply, the respondent raised the preliminary objec�ons inter alia that the applica�on being false, vague, irrelevant and without any merits, is liable to be dismissed and the same is not maintainable. The pe��oner is habitual of filing of such type of applica�ons to delay the proceedings of the case. On merits, the respondent has contended that the pe��oner has filed the false pe��on on the basis of defamatory allega�ons in order to pressurize the respondent to withdraw her pe��on under Sec�on 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The issues were framed on 29.05.2023 and the Court granted 9 opportuni�es to him to conclude his evidence subject to the last opportunity with the undertaking of the learned counsel for the pe��oner but the pe��oner has failed to conclude his evidence and his evidence was closed by order on 16.11.2023. The present ma3er has been fixed for evidence of the pe��oner since 29.05.2023 but he has failed to produce any evidence. The respondent has denied all other averments of the applica�on being wrong and prayed for dismissal of the same.
Having heard both the sides, it is the ma3er of record that the evidence of the pe��oner was closed by order on 16.11.2023. The Court has categorically observed in order dated 16.11.2023 that the pe��oner has failed to conclude his evidence despite availing 9 opportuni�es including last as well as final opportunity. Even the learned counsel for the pe��oner had suffered a statement on 12.10.2023 to conclude the evidence. It is the ma3er of record that a7er giving such undertaking on 12.10.2023, the Court gave one more opportunity of 02.11.2023. On that day the Court again gave one more opportunity for 16.11.2023 subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. The Court closed the evidence of pe��oner on 16.11.2023 as the pe��oner neither paid the costs nor produced any evidence.
The ma3er does not end here because the pe��oner had moved a similar applica�on under Sec�on 151 of Code of Civil Procedure on 05.12.2023 for recalling the order dated 16.11.2023 but the same was withdrawn by the pe��oner on 09.01.2024 due to technical defect with permission to file fresh
RENU 2024.09.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.5576 of 2024 -3-
one. Therea7er the ma3er was adjourned for about 8 dates of hearing for evidence of the respondent and the respondent has also produced her evidence. Then the pe��oner has moved the present applica�on on the same grounds. If there was any formal or technical immediately on the next date of hearing or within reasonable �me, not when the evidence of respondent was going to be concluded. Moreover there is no change in the contents of the present applica�on so as to assume any formal or technical defect in the previous such like applica�on. It comes out that the pe��oner has moved the present applica�on a7er so many hearings just to delay the proceedings of the case and to harass the respondent.
In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out to recall the order dated 16.11.2023 and to grant fresh opportunity to the pe��oner for leading his evidence. Consequently, the present applica�on is dismissed.
Now for remaining evidence of the respondent subject to last opportunity, to come up on 29.07.2024.”
| September 24, 2024 | ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) | |
|---|---|---|
| renu | JUDGE | |
| Whether Speaking/reasoned | Yes/No | |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
RENU 2024.09.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a party whose evidence was closed by order after repeated non-appearance deserves one more opportunity to lead evidence despite serving in ITBP.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prem Singh
Kuldeep Kaur
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
