Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushma Aggarwal vs Ramesh Chand And Others on 2 August, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CR No.4971-2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.4971-2014
Date of Decision: August 02, 2014
Sushma Aggarwal ...Petitioner
vs.
Ramesh Chand and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
***
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J (Oral)
This petition is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi dated 17th July, 2014 in which a direction has been issued to the plaintiff, the petitioner before this Court, to conclude the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses on 30th July, 2014. The hurry in which the learned trial Court has proceeded stems from Action Plan 2014-2015 set by this Court on its administrative side for speedy disposal of old pending cases. The suit is an old one dating back to 2008. When witnesses are brought by parties at their own responsibility then the trial Court ought not to issue a direction for their production. Non- attendance of a witness on a date fixed may have serious consequences on the producing party. The Civil Court should avoid passing an order at a hearing in the present which may adversely impact the future of the case. PARITOSH KUMAR 2014.08.06 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.4971-2014 2 Therefore, the last direction issued that no further opportunity shall be granted to either of the parties for completion of recording of the cross- examination of defence witness Ramesh Chand afresh, is not proper exercise of jurisdiction. The civil court should not ordinarily posture itself in a manner which may be perceived as one extending a threat to litigants for a future date to act or to refrain from acting in a particular way or to foreclose a decision today which is best left open to be considered at the next date of hearing in the circumstances which may prevail then. If there is failure to act or take steps in the proceedings then the trial Judge could then easily shape his order justly according to the dictates of reason when confronted with the new situation it may face. With the passing of such sealing orders, the trial Court takes away its own discretion and if its discretion is taken away today to act tomorrow, the Court would cease to be a court of justice.
For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is accepted. The impugned order is preemptory and is thus set aside. The petitioner is free to lead his evidence within a reasonable time.
August 02, 2014 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
mamta/Paritosh Kumar JUDGE
PARITOSH KUMAR
2014.08.06 10:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document