Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Swami Traders & Motors Lmv Market Thr ... vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Thru Its ... on 3 July, 2018
Author: B.S. Walia
Bench: B.S. Walia
Civil Revision No.4087 of 2018 1
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4087 of 2018
Date of Decision : 03.07.2018
M/S Swami Traders and Motors LMV Market, through its partners.
...Petitioners
Versus
M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & ors. ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. WALIA
Present :- Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
B.S.Walia J (Oral)
1. Challenge is to order dated 11th May, 2018, Annexure P-5, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Mohali treating the cross-examination of PW-1 i.e. Amit Kumar Raghav as nil.
2. Learned counsel contends that on framing of issues, vide order dated 27th September, 2017, the matter was fixed for plaintiffs evidence on 21.11.2017. However, no PW was present on 27.11.2017. Therefore the case was adjourned to 19.12.2017 on which date again no PW was present. The case was then adjourned to 12.03.2018 but again no PW appeared on said date of hearing. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 17.02.2018 and then to 12.03.2018. The respondent/plaintiff did not lead any evidence. The matter was also referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the same having failed, the matter 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2018 21:36:16 ::: Civil Revision No.4087 of 2018 2 was returned back to the Court. Eventually, evidence in the form of affidavit of Amit Kumar Raghav, Senior Manager (Legal) and authorized representative of respondent plaintiff i.e. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Limited was filed. The witness in question was subjected to cross examination on 03.05.2018 and further cross examination was deferred as counsel for the petitioner defendant sought time to go through the account statement produced by the PW-1. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 11.05.2018. The witness was also directed to produce certificate regarding destruction of accounts statement relating to the petitioner. On 11.05.2018, when the matter was called out, arguing counsel who had to conduct cross examination was not available being indisposed, therefore, request was made for adjourning the case from 11.05.2018 to 14.05.2018. However, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) ordered that cross examination of PW-1 Amit Kumar Raghav be treated as nil and posted the case for 17.05.2018 for remaining PWs.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that cross examination of PW-1 is essential failing which the same would seriously prejudice the cause of justice. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. Admittedly, a number of opportunities were taken by the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence. Cross examination of PW-1 was conducted on 03.05.2018, whereupon, the matter was adjourned to 11.05.2018 to enable the counsel conducting the cross examination to compare the accounts statements. However, on the adjourned date, the arguing counsel was unavailable being indisposed and request was made for adjourning the case for three days i.e. to 14.05.2018. Although, the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2018 21:36:16 ::: Civil Revision No.4087 of 2018 3 case was adjourned to 17.05.2018, yet the cross examination of PW-1 was treated as nil. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohali ought to have granted one opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to cross examine PW-1 Amit Kumar Raghav either on the date on which the matter had been adjourned i.e. 17.05.2018 or on any earlier date. The same would be in the interest of justice. Besides, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that although, the matter was adjourned to 17.05.2018 for remaining evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, yet no other evidence was led on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff and the matter was thereafter fixed for defence evidence for 03.07.2018. Thereafter, case is listed for defence evidence for today but it is informed that the matter has been adjourned to 20.08.2018 on the request of the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances, in view of the order proposed to be passed, issuing notice to the respondents would merely delay the decision of the case before the learned trial Court. Besides, the respondent would be burdened with unnecessary expenses. On the other hand, if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross examine PW-1, not only would the same be in keeping with substantial justice, the same would also uphold the majesty of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Petitioner shall be granted one opportunity to cross examine PW-1 for which the learned trial Court shall fix a date for doing the needful subject to the petitioner making payment of costs of ` 7,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff within ten days of receipt of certified copy of this 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2018 21:36:16 ::: Civil Revision No.4087 of 2018 4 order. It is made clear that in case costs are not paid, no opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner.
6. Revision petition is allowed as above.
( B.S.Walia )
JUDGE
03.07.2018
Manpreet
Whether reasoned / speaking Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2018 21:36:16 :::