Himachal Pradesh High Court
Piar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 2015
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 377 of 2015.
Date of decision : 9th September, 2015.
.
Piar Singh. ..... .... Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India & ors. ......... Respondents.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No.
rt
For the petitioner : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI with Mr.
Angrej Kapoor, Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. D.S. Nainta and Mr. Virender
Verma, Addl. AGs with Mr.
Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG, for
respondents No. 2 and 3.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Virender Verma, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:54:15 :::HCHP 22. Heard. Order dated 11.3.2015, passed in Civil Suit No. 14 of 2010 and order dated 1.8.2015 passed in an application under Order 18 .
Rule 3(a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as CMA No. 197 of 2015 under challenge in this petition. It is seen that vide order passed in civil suit on 11.3.2015, learned trial Court has ordered to of close the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. The application, CMA No. 197 of 2015, filed by the plaintiff-petitioner with a prayer to examine him on rt recalling the order dated 11.3.2015 has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.8.2015 with the observation that the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to produce the entire evidence despite near about ten opportunities granted for the purpose.
3. The record available at this stage reveals that the suit after settlement of issues was adjourned to 28.10.2013 for recording plaintiff's evidence. However, could only be taken up on 22.11.2013. On that day, some applications came to be filed and out of which, one application could be disposed of finally on 11.2.2014 vide order Annexure P-3. This order reveals that the suit thereafter was ordered to be adjourned to 10.4.2014 for recording plaintiff's evidence. On 10.4.2014, some witnesses were examined and as an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was pending, therefore, the case was adjourned for consideration of the said application to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:54:15 :::HCHP 3 3.5.2014. That application could only be disposed of vide order dated 13.8.2014. On the next date, i.e., 3.11.2014, three more witnesses were .
present and examined. On the next date, i.e., 28.11.2014, the witnesses were not present irrespective of steps taken by the plaintiff-petitioner. However, for the next date, i.e. 2.1.2015, since the plaintiff-petitioner did not take of steps, therefore, no evidence could be recorded on that day also. One witness, however, was recorded on the next date, i.e., 16.2.2015. It is rt thereafter on 11.3.2015, one more witness was examined and perhaps some more witnesses were left to be examined, however, not present and as such, the plaintiff's evidence was ordered to be closed on that day. The trial Court has declined to examine the plaintiff-petitioner also. This has led in filing application, CMA No. 197 of 2015 with a prayer to record the statement of the plaintiff-petitioner on recall of order dated 11.3.2015 passed in the main suit, but of no avail as this application was also dismissed.
4. The plaintiff-petitioner is not at any fault as after settlement of issues, the suit remained pending for consideration of the applications on different dates. He has taken steps from time to time for producing the evidence of his behalf. It is only on one occasion when he failed to take steps. Therefore, not only the order passed in the main suit on 11.3.2014 but also in the application, CMA No. 197 of 2015 is harsh and oppressive, hence ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:54:15 :::HCHP 4 not legally sustainable. The plaintiff-petitioner is now seeking permission only for his own examination. The plaintiff-petitioner may not condemn .
unheard, the trial Court should have examined him. The order dated 11.3.2014 passed in the main suit and order dated 1.8.2015 passed in the application, CMA No. 197 of 2015, therefore, being legally and factually of unsustainable are quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to the trial Court to fix the suit for recording the statement of the plaintiff first and rt thereafter for recording the evidence on behalf of the defendants.
5. This petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
6. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
Copy Dasti.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
September 9, 2015, (vs) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:54:15 :::HCHP