Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab National Bank And Anr vs Chajju Ram And Anr on 17 September, 2015
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CR No.6096 of 2015 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.6096 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.09.2015
Punjab National Bank and another ... Petitioners
Vs.
Chajju Ram Proprietor of M/s Gaurav Industries
and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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. Sunil Toni, Advocate
for the petitioners.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the evidence of the petitioner-defendant has been closed by order.
Mr. Sunil Toni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant submits that as per zimni orders dated 19/ 29.05.2015, DW3 was being summoned through non-bailable warrants. The trial Court instead of resorting to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 12 CPC, closed the evidence by order. He prays that DW3 is none else but a handwriting expert. The zimni orders dated 19.05.2015, 29.05.2015, 29.07.2015, 03.08.2015 and 19.08.2015 are reproduced herein below:-
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.09.23 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.6096 of 2015 (O&M) 2
19.5.2015 "S.K.Garg, Advocate defendant got recorded his statement that he will produce entire evidence on the next date of hearing of the case, otherwise evidence of the defendant may be closed by order.
No DW is present. DW3 Devendra Prasad not come present in the Court for his cross-examination. I am of the considered opinion that he cannot be summoned through ordinary process, as such, he be summoned through non bailable warrants and salary of said witness is also ordered to be attached and an intimation in this respect be sent to concerned office for 29.5.2015. Now to come up on date fixed for cross examination of DW3 and for evidence of defendant subject to last & final opportunity. No further opportunity will be granted." 29.05.2015 "No DW is present. Non bailable warrant DW3 Devendra Prasad not issued. Again be issued as per previous order for 6.7.2015.
Now to come up on date fixed for cross examination of DW3 & for evidence of defendant subject to last and final opportunity. No further opportunity will be granted." 29.7.2015.
"DW4 G.S.Khanna is present and partly cross examined. SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.09.23 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.6096 of 2015 (O&M) 3 Non bailable warrant DW3 Devendra Prasad not issued. Again be issued as per previous order for 3.8.2015. Now to come up on date fixed for cross examination of DW3, DW4 and for evidence of defendant subject to last and final opportunity. No further opportunity will be granted."
3.8.2015 DW4 G.S.Khanna is present and cross examined. Non bailable warrant DW3 Devendra Prasad not issued. Again be issued as per previous order for 19.8.2015. Now to come up on date fixed for cross examination of DW3, DW4 & for evidence of defendant subject to last and final opportunity. No further opportunity will be granted. 19.8.2015 "Non bailable warrant DW3 Devendra Prasad not issued. Again be issued as per previous order for 24.8.2015. Now to come up on the date fixed for cross examination of DW3, DW4 & for evidence of defendant subject to last and final opportunity. No further opportunity will be granted."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.
On noticing zimni orders above, it is evident that trial Court has not resorted to provisions of Order 16 Rule 12 CPC. In my view, the impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality, much less, SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.09.23 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.6096 of 2015 (O&M) 4 perversity, as the Court should have resorted to the provisions as envisaged under Order 16 Rule 12 CPC. The handwriting expert has to appear only for cross examination, though the Court, on earlier occasions, issued non-bailable warrants, but suddenly volte faced by closing evidence by order, therefore, in my view, the impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to strictly comply with the provisions of Order 16 Rule 12 CPC to secure the presence of DW3, handwriting expert to appear and offer for cross examination, in accordance with law.
In view of what has been observed above, revision petition stands allowed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 17, 2015 savita SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.09.23 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh