Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jarnail Singh vs Hans Raj on 21 November, 2014
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel
1
ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 37136/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/09/2013
in CR No. 2856/2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
JARNAIL SINGH & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HANS RAJ & ORS Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 21/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.S.Boparai, Adv.
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.Tewari, Adv.
Mr.Amit Pai, Adv.
Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.
Mr. Shree Pal Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Shashi Sareen Date: 2014.11.26 10:59:39 ALMT Reason: (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master
( Signed Order is placed on the file.) 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 10457 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 37136 of 2014) JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. .. Appellant(s) .
Versus
HANS RAJ AND ORS. .. Respondent(s)
.
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order dated
26.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh whereby Civil Revision No. 2856 of 2012 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and Orders dated 18.03.2006 and 17.02.2010 passed by the Trial Court affirmed. It is unnecessary for us to trace the factual matrix in detail as the orders passed by the High Court and those passed by the courts below have sufficiently done so. All that we need say is that in the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Hans Raj, the defendants appear to have absented themselves on 18.03.2006 when 3 Hans Raj and his witness Walati Ram were both present for further cross-examination before the Trial Court. An application was then filed by the defendants-the appellants herein for setting aside the said proceedings which prayer was contested by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on several grounds. The Trial Court eventually passed an order on 12.09.2011 allowing the application filed by the defendant-appellant but only to the extent that the defendants could join the proceedings from the stage at which the same had reached. It is common ground that on the date the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings was disposed of by the Trial Court, the plaintiff's evidence was yet to be concluded. The defendant-appellant herein therefore not only cross-examined, the remaining of the plaintiff's witnesses but also applied for recall of Hans Raj and Walati Ram who had been partly cross-examined but the cross-examination had remained inconclusive as the defendants had been proceeded ex-parte. The Trial Court considered the prayer but declined to recall Hans Raj and Walati Ram by its order dated 12.09.2011. The appellant then preferred a revision petition before the High Court in which they not only assailed the order dated 18.03.2006 restricting their right to participation in the proceedings from the stage at which 4 the order was passed but also challenging the order dated 12.09.2010. by which the Trial Court had refused to recall the witnesses already examined and partly cross-examined. The High Court has by the impugned order before us dismissed the said revision petition and affirmed the said order as already mentioned above.
We have heard counsel for the parties at some length. The High Court in our opinion could and indeed ought to have permitted the recall of the two witnesses who had been partially cross-examined by the defendant-appellants herein. It is true that the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that Jarnail Singh-appellant No. 1 had not even stepped into the witness box to support his application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings but given the fact that the dispute relates to a valuable piece of property measuring 21 Kanals of agricultural land in the District of Ludhiana and the two witnesses sought to be recalled happen to be the plaintiff and the attesting witness of the alleged agreement to sell, denial of opportunity to cross-examine them is bound to result in a decree against the defendant rendering the trial an idle formality and causing grave prejudice to the defendants.
In the totality of the circumstances therefore and having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has already 5 completed his evidence and so have the defendants all that remains is to recall Hans Raj and Walati Ram for completing the inconclusive part of their cross-examination. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and that passed by the Trial Court and direct that Hans Raj-respondent No. 1 and Walati Ram the attesting witness who has already been examined and partly cross-examined shall be summoned for further cross-examination by the Trial Court on 19.01.2015. We make it clear that the appellant shall make arrangement to ensure that the said witnesses are cross-examined when they appear and no adjournment for that purpose is sought. This order shall however remain subject to the payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to be deposited before the Trial Court for payment to the counsel opposite.
......................J. (T.S.THAKUR) ......................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) New Delhi, November 21, 2014.