Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Mandeep Kaur vs The Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 6 May, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 2581 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2581 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 6.5.2009
Smt. Mandeep Kaur ..... Petitioner
vs
The Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court.
For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but the suit as well.
The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for release of retiral benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issues in the present case were framed on 1.12.2006 and thereafter the case was adjourned for petitioner's evidence. He submitted that it was not the fault of the petitioner in seeking adjournments as on some occasions, the case was adjourned on request of counsel for the defendants. On 4.6.2007, the petitioner examined two witnesses and they were bound down for 20.8.2007. However, they did not turn up on the adjourned dates. The petitioner is a widow and she is claiming retiral benefits of her deceased husband. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete her entire evidence on the date fixed.
The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is evident from the zimni orders that she had produced witnesses but their cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the defendants.
Civil Revision No. 2581 of 2009 (2) Considering the fact that the petitioner is seeking retiral benefits after the death of her husband, and also that the petitioner is a widow, as a matter of indulgence, while setting aside the impugned order dated 10.3.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to her for completing her evidence on the date to be fixed by the court. The petitioner is also at liberty to summon the witnesses through the process of the court. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the respondents.
The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
6.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge