Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs Zora Singh on 18 November, 2010
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 7504 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 18, 2010
Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.
...Petitioner
Versus
Zora Singh.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be
Allowed to see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Alok Singh, J. (Oral)
Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby evidence of the applicant-appellant-petitioner herein on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was closed and ultimately application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and consequently appeal was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner states that since respondent was ex-parte before the Appellate Court C.R. No. 7504 of 2010 2 vide order dated 02.12.2009, hence, contents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been presumed to be correct being uncontroverted, however, it was not done and applicant-appellant-petitioner was directed to produce evidence. Learned counsel further states that on the date either fixed by this Court or by the learned District Judge, the applicant-appellant-petitioner herein shall produce all the evidence in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup reported in 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 423 placing reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur has held that matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission without any notice to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings.
In the opinion of this Court, present matter can be disposed of at the admission stage without any notice to the respondent. This Court is of the further opinion that issuing notice to the respondent shall cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matter, hence, this Court proposes to decide this petition without notice to the respondent. C.R. No. 7504 of 2010 3
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind, the golden rule that none should be given walk over and lis between the parties, as far as possible, should be decided at its own merit after affording sufficient opportunities to both the parties to place on record entire evidence and material, this Court direct that learned District Judge shall fix a date for the purpose of applicant-appellant- petitioner's evidence. On the date so fixed, petitioner shall produce all the witnesses before the learned District Judge for examination. If, for any reason, examination is not complete on the date so fixed, then learned Court shall be at liberty to hold day-to-day trial or fix any future date, which is convenient to the Court. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner.
If respondent feels aggrieved from this order, he shall be at liberty to move this Court for recalling of the order.
Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.
November 18, 2010 (Alok Singh) vkd Judge