Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmir Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 5 April, 2013
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2261 of 2013
Date of Decision : April 05, 2013
Kashmir Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board and another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The plaintiff has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 26.2.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala, whereby his evidence stands closed by order.
A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that on that day no PW was present, despite it being the last opportunity. Instead, counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment, which was highly opposed. Finding that the issues were framed on 7.8.2012 and the petitioner had availed numerous opportunities to conclude his evidence but had failed to do the same, the trial Court found no justification in granting further adjournment so as to enable the appellant to examine his evidence. Accordingly, his evidence was closed by order.
Counsel for the petitioner states that on 11.9.2012 and 28.9.2012, the petitioner could not produce his evidence. On the next date, i.e. 16.11.2012, an application was filed by the Civil Revision No. 2261 of 2013 -2- petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 to 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and notice of the said application was issued. The defendants-respondents availed two opportunities for filing their reply. It was only on 17.1.2013 that the application filed by the petitioner for production of documents was disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioner could not produce his evidence on the adjourned date, i.e. 12.2.2013 and when the position remained the same even on the next date, his evidence was closed by the trial Court. It is submitted that after 17.1.2013, the petitioner was not given adequate opportunities for examining his evidence. In case one more opportunity is granted, the petitioner would produce his entire evidence and he would himself be responsible for producing his witnesses.
Without considering the merits of the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner but keeping in view the interest of justice, the present revision is disposed of by directing the trial Court to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence. The petitioner shall be responsible for producing his witnesses. The order shall, however, be subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court, which, thereafter, be transmitted to the Legal Services Authority, Gurdaspur.
( T.P.S. MANN )
April 05, 2013 JUDGE
satish