Allowed¶22

Barinder Mahajan v. Santokh Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2025CR/567/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Evidence of plaintiff closed by Court order — revision for setting aside order dated 04.11.2024 of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pathankot in Civil Suit No.146/2018; one effective opportunity granted subject to Rs.20,000/- costs to respondent; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Nidhi Gupta J.; 04.02.2025; Barinder Mahajan v. Santokh Singh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.11.2024 set aside; trial court to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs to the respondent; pending applications disposed of. ¶22

Barinder Mahajan Vs Santokh Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 closing the plaintiff/petitioner's evidence should be set aside and one effective opportunity granted to enable the petitioner to conclude his evidence.

¶21

Court's answer

Keeping in view the facts canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) is set aside.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Issuance of notice of motion was dispensed with at this stage, as it would have caused further delay in disposal of the case.

¶22

Key takeaways

The learned Court below is directed to grant one effective opportunity to enable the petitioner to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs to the respondent.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision No.567 of 2025 — Barinder Mahajan v. Santokh Singh and another (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Nidhi Gupta J., decision dated 04.02.2025). Petition sought setting aside of the order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pathankot in Civil Suit No.146/2018 (‘Barinder Mahajan vs. Santokh Singh’) whereby the plaintiff's evidence was closed by Court order on account of non-payment of previous cost of Rs.200/- and failure to conclude the remaining evidence since 2018 despite effective opportunities; the suit had been adjourned to 12.11.2024 for defendant evidence. Notice of motion was dispensed with to avoid further delay; the petition was allowed; the impugned order was set aside; and the learned Court below was directed to grant one effective opportunity to enable the petitioner to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs to the respondent. Pending applications disposed of; disposed of as above.

¶1

CR-567-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

128

¶5

Civil Revision No.567 of 2025 Date of decision :-04.02.2025

Barinder Mahajan

…..Petitioner

Versus

Santokh Singh and another

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advoc a te for the petitioner.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the impugned order date d 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) pas s ed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pathankot, in Civil Suit No.146/2018, titled as ‘Barinder Mahajan vs. Santokh Singh, vide w h ich the evidence of the plaintiff/p e titioner was closed by Court orde r .

¶15

On 04.11.2024 the following i m pugned order was passed by the learne d Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pathanko t :-

¶16

“Previous cost of Rs.200/- not paid. No evidence is produced b y plaintiff. Case file transpires that present case pertai n s to the year 2018 and since then, various effectiv e opportunities has already been availed by plai n tiff to conclude the entire remaining evidence, b u t plaintiff failed to conclude the same. Learned co u nsel for the plaintiff again requested for adjournm e nt but there is no reasonable justification to grant f urther adjournment for this purpose. Therefore, the evidence of plaintiff is closed by order.

¶17

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.02.06 09.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

¶19

CR-567-2025

¶20

Case is adjo u rned to 12.11.2024, for defendant evidence.” Learned counsel for the petiti o ner/plaintiff submits that on 11.10.202 4 the case was fixed for recordin g the evidence of the plaintiff and subse q uently, the case was listed for he a ring only on one occasion i.e. 22.10.202 4 . Thereafter the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) has been passed by the learned trial Co u rt.

¶21

Learned counsel submits tha t the petitioner would suffer irreparabl e loss if the impugned order dated 0 4.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) is not set a s ide. At the very outset, learne d counsel submits that one effective o pportunity may be granted to the petitioner herein to conclude his evide n ce, as grave injustice will be c aused to him if he is not permitted to do so.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, issuance of notice of motion is dispensed with at this stage, as it will cause further delay in d i sposal of the case. Accordingly, k eeping in view the above facts as canvas s ed by learned Counsel for the pe t itioner, this petition is allowed and impu g ned order dated 04.11.2024 (A n nexure P-1) is set aside. The learned C o urt below is directed to grant one effective opportunity to enable the petitioner herein to conclude his eviden c e, however subject to payment of Rs.20, 0 00/- as costs to the respondent the r ein.

¶23

Disposed of as above.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

February 0 4, 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶26

Whether s p eaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether R e portable Yes / No

¶27

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.02.06 09.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Barinder Mahajan v. Santokh Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barinder Mahajan v. Santokh Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Rattan Mittal Vs Improvement Trust Barnala and Ors.

Rampat Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others

Alim and Others Vs Lalit Kumar and Another

Lakhwinder Singh Vs Gur Iqbal Singh

Nikhil Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Kaur and Another Vs Sarabjit Singh and Others