Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Lal vs Kishan Lal And Anr on 12 December, 2016
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
112 CR No.7456 of 2016
Date of Decision: December 12, 2016
RATTAN LAL
-PETITIONER
VS
KISHAN LAL AND ANR.
-RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr.Achin Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has assailed order dated 10.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda vide which cross-examination of respondent No.1 has been allowed. Plaintiff-respondent closed his evidence after tendering documents on 27.11.2015.
Earlier plaintiff-respondent tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief on 07.07.2015 and his cross-examination was deferred for 15.10.2015. Petitioner alleged that on the adjourned date i.e. 15.10.2015, the plaintiff-respondent was partly cross-examined and further cross-examination was deferred for 27.11.2015. On 27.11.2015, the evidence of the plaintiff was inadvertently closed by making statement by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Further cross-examination of the plaintiff-respondent could not be done. Thereafter, 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2016 13:07:35 ::: CR No.7456 of 2016 -2- defendants also led their evidence.
Presently, the case is fixed for rebuttal and arguments. At this stage, an application for further cross- examination of the plaintiff-respondent came to be filed. The trial Court vide order dated 10.08.2016 granted indulgence in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on the premise that the evidence of the plaintiff was inadvertently closed without full cross- examination of the plaintiff.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.
Even there was some omission on the part of learned counsel for the plaintiff in closing the evidence, the same cannot come in the way of imparting justice between the parties.
In my considered opinion, the indulgence shown by the trial Court is perfectly correct, but the trial Court should have imposed some reasonable cost while allowing the cross- examination of the plaintiff to be completed.
I dismiss the revision petition with a rider that the plaintiff-respondent should be burdened with costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the petitioner before granting indulgence for his further cross-examination. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for further cross-examination of the plaintiff.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2016 13:07:36 ::: CR No.7456 of 2016 -3- In view of facts and circumstances of the case, notice of motion is not being issued just to curtail further delay and pecuniary loss to the plaintiff.
With the aforesaid rider, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
December 12, 2016
jyoti Y.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2016 13:07:36 :::