Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Smt.Raj Rani And Others on 4 March, 2011
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Civil Revision No.1501 of 2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.1501 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: March 4, 2011
Bhupinder Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
Smt.Raj Rani and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.Nos.6047-48-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures.
The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Civil Revision No.1501 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2011, vide which the application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff for permitting him to be cross-examined by the defendants has been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.
Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff, which was contested by respondent-defendants. Issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence. Case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, when the present application has been filed for permitting the Civil Revision No.1501 of 2011(O&M) -2- petitioner-plaintiff to be cross-examined by respondent-defendants, which was declined by learned trial Court by observing as under:-
" Perusal of file reveals that plaintiff's evidence was closed by the Court on 10.3.2009 after granting him 17 opportunities including several last opportunities for concluding his evidence, but he failed to conclude the same. Number of opportunities granted to plaintiff itself speaks volume about the time given to plaintiff for leading his evidence. Therefore, today he cannot take the plea that due to inadvertence, cross-examination of plaintiff could not be commenced. Plaintiff never filed revision against the order whereby his evidence was closed by the court. He has filed this application at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments only to delay the matter. In these circumstances, finding no merits in the application, the same is hereby dismissed."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that though counsel for the petitioner was negligent in not producing the petitioner-plaintiff for cross-examination and however, counsel for the defendants was also negligent in not insisting for cross- examination of plaintiff and that even Court should have passed the specific order for cross-examination of present petitioner-plaintiff.
Be that as it may, sufficient opportunities have been granted to petitioner-plaintiff to conclude his evidence. Evidence of the petitioner was closed as per his statement. However, only prayer of petitioner-plaintiff is that he wants himself to be cross-examined by respondent-defendants, as he has already filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief before the learned trial Court.
Hence, in view of these facts, one more opportunity for the purpose of cross-examination can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff and the other party can be compensated by way of cost.
As a sequel to my above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to present petitioner-plaintiff for getting himself to be cross-examined by counsel for the respondent-
Civil Revision No.1501 of 2011(O&M) -3-defendants. However, petitioner-plaintiff is burdened with cost of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent.
Disposed of accordingly
4.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta)
meenu Judge