Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Singh Gogia vs M/S Khan Chand Hans Raj And Others on 22 May, 2012
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CR 5142 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CR 5142 of 2011
Date of decision: 22.5.2012
Jaspreet Singh Gogia
.. petitioner
vs
M/S Khan Chand Hans Raj and others
... respondent
Present: Mr. HS Dhindsa, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Puneert Singla, Advocate for respondent.
M.M.S. BEDI,J.
Vide impugned order dated 12.1.2011, the trial court has closed the evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner by order on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to conclude his evidence within a period of 2 ½ years. The trial court also took into consideration that the matter has been adjourned to 13/14 dates i.e. from 20.10.2008, 19.1.2009, 25.5.2009, 12.8.2009, 13.10.2009, 19.12.2009, 2.3.2010, 19.4.2010, 28.5.2010, 13.8.2010, 21.9.2010, 28.10.2010 till 7.12.2010 and the plaintiff had failed to conclude his evidence. The order dated 12.1.2011 appears to have been rightly passed by the trial court. On questioned as to how many more witnesses are required to be produced, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW Suresh, PW Iqbal and one court witness to prove the pendency of the private complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are to be produced. It has also been informed that Iqbal is not named witness in the list. It has been submitted that in case one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to produce the entire evidence, it will CR 5142 of 2011 2 be a fair opportunity to substantiate the pleas in the plaint.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the interim orders and the nature of the litigation. Plaintiff- petitioner Jaspreet Singh appears to be an Advocate, who has filed a suit for compensation and damages against the defendants on account of harassment having been caused to him maliciously . In the interest of justice, despite there being patent lapses on the part of the plaintiff, one opportunity can be granted to the plaintiff to examine his witnesses subject to payment of cost to the defendant- respondents for unnecessary harassment caused to them on account of delay in production of the evidence by the plaintiff.
In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 12.1.2011 is hereby set aside and one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to produce PW Suresh and court witness with the record of the private complaint u/s 138 of the Act subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant- respondents. The cost will be paid on the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court i.e. 30.5.2012. The trial court thereafter will fix one date of hearing, on which date, all the witnesses, sought to be produced by the plaintiff, will be permitted to be produced, at his own responsibility. It is made clear that in case the cost is not paid or the witnesses are not produced on the date fixed, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on the date already fixed i.e. 30.5.2012.
There are certain remarks regarding the conduct of the counsel for the plaintiff, appearing before the trial court on 12.1.2011, when the impugned order was passed. Since the observations have been made CR 5142 of 2011 3 without giving an opportunity to the counsel, the remarks will be expunged without expression of any opinion on merits or the circumstances , in which the said remarks were incorporated in the order.
May 22 ,2012 ( M.M.S. BEDI ) TSM JUDGE