Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh And Another vs Swaran Kumar on 17 October, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 6199 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 6199 of 2012
Date of Decision : October 17, 2012
Paramjit Singh and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
Swaran Kumar .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have assailed order dated 04.09.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial court, thereby closing evidence of plaintiffs by court order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiffs for their remaining evidence, at own responsibility.
C. R. No. 6199 of 2012 2
I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of impugned order of the trial court reveals that plaintiffs were granted five opportunities in all for their evidence. Perusal of zimni orders of the trial court, reproduced in the revision petition, reveals that no witness of the plaintiffs was present on first three opportunities, whereas on the fourth date of hearing for their evidence, examination-in- chief of one witness was recorded and his cross-examination was deferred. On the next date of hearing, cross-examination of the said witness was recorded. There was no other witness present, and therefore, evidence of plaintiffs was closed by court order.
Having carefully examined the matter, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs for their remaining evidence, at own responsibility, on payment of costs.
I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to defendant-respondent so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the defendant-respondent of the expenses he may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to him.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the C. R. No. 6199 of 2012 3 plaintiffs for their remaining evidence, at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs precedent.
October 17, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE