Allowed

Bugla Son of Dhhalya v. Heeralal Son of Srilalji

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2023CW/4049/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders that closed petitioner evidence. The Court quashed the order forcing appeal through claimants to summon an Investigating Officer, directing the Tribunal to summon the government employee directly.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 25.02.2022 and 04.11.2022 by the Tribunal quashed; directed to summon Investigating Officer for evidence recording.

Bugla Son of Dhhalya Vs Heeralal Son of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

2023:RJ-JP:14415

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4049/2023

¶4

Bugla Son Of Dhhalya, Resident Of Village Indroli, Tehsil Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶5

Mst. Santara Wife Of Bugla, Resident Of Village Indroli, Tehsil Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Heeralal Son Of Srilalji, Resident Of Village Indroli, Tehsil Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. Rj05/1R-0714)

¶9

Soni Son Of Natthi, Resident Of Village Satwadi, Tehsil Pahari, Distt. Bharatpur At Present Resident Of Village Indroli, Tehsil Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (Driver Of Vehicle Tractor No. Rj05/1R-0714)

¶10

National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Station Road, Nai Mandi, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor No. Rj05/1R-0714 Through Policy No. Jro-0261322 Insurance Period 19.12.03 To 18.12.04)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemendra Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

¶14

17/07/2023

¶15

By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 25.02.2022 and 04.11.2022, by which, the evidence of the petitioners was closed by the Additional District Judge (MACT), (hereinafter to be referred as “the learned Tribunal”).

¶16

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in closing the evidence of the petitioners, as the Investigating Officer of the criminal case is the important witness to prove their case before the learned Tribunal and prayed for allowing the writ petition.

¶17

[CW-4049/2023]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed; for the reason that the learned Tribunal has summoned the Investigating Officer of the criminal case on earlier occasion, however, when the said witness appeared before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have moved an application for recording of his evidence but the learned Tribunal has wrongly ordered for future appearance of the said witness through the claimants, which in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has committed an error by calling the same witness again through claimant, rather, it is duty of the learned Tribunal to call the Investigating Officer as he is a government employee and the petitioners have no control over the said witness, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it just and proper to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Hence, the present writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 25.02.2022 and 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal are quashed and set-aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to summon the Investigating Officer for recording his evidence in the case.

¶22

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶23

Upendra/110

Bugla Son of Dhhalya v. Heeralal Son of Srilalji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bugla Son of Dhhalya v. Heeralal Son of Srilalji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Kumar Son of Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma Vs Ganga Ram S/O Shri Moolya

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Shri Nnuman Vs Kedar Son of Shri Gangaram

Girraj Khandelwal S/O Shri Prabhulal Ji Vs Hanuman Sharma S/O Late Durgalal Sharma

Manoj Kumar Sharma S/O Late Mr. Babulal Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Information Commission

Riya Sharma D/O Shri Vinod Sharma Vs the Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board

M/S Star Minerals Vs Principal Chief Conservetor of Forest (Hoff)