Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Paul vs Hari Singh And Others on 5 December, 2011
Civil Revision No. 7475 of 2011
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 7475 of 2011
Date of decision. 05.12.2011
Joginder Paul .... Petitioner
Versus
Hari Singh and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
Present: Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
Joginder Paul is in revision before me under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2011 (Anexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur(Punjab) vide which his evidence has been closed by order of the court.
In the suit brought by Joginder Paul for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 3-1/2 marlas properly detailed in head note of the plaint, he was leading his evidence on 19.09.2011. As is evident from the impugned order, it was last Civil Revision No. 7475 of 2011
--2--
opportunity to the plaintiff to bring his evidence. Inspite of the same, no evidence of the plaintiff was present on that day and in these circumstances, learned trial court found no justification for further adjournment of the case for his evidence and closed the same by order of the court.
The evidence was being recorded in the counter claim and so learned trial court has sometimes described it as plaintiff's evidence and sometimes as RWs.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition.
I have heard Shri Shekhar Verma,, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.
It is the case that after filing of the counter claim, it was the defendants, who were given opportunity to lead evidence first. After availing 26 opportunities, the evidence of the defendants in the counter claim was closed on 11.06.2011. The suit in which the counter claim was filed had been dismissed as withdrawn earlier. So, after closing the evidence of the defendants, the plaintiff was permitted to lead his evidence. The first date for his evidence has been 18.07.2011 and his evidence stands closed vide order dated 19.09.2011. Though opportunities granted are six in number but they are spread in a period of about two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one effective opportunity to the petitioner would be sufficient for his evidence, which was not granted by learned trial court.
Civil Revision No. 7475 of 2011
--3--
Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I do not find that learned trial court has been justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiff in such a haste. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, I direct learned trial court to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence for which he may be given dasti summons, if he so desired.
05.12.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
dinesh JUDGE