Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Permod Kumar Bansal vs M/S Radha Krishan Roshan Lal And Others on 2 February, 2010

Civil Revision No. 354 of 2010
                                                                        -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                               Civil Revision No. 354 of 2010
                               Date of decision: 02.02.2010

Permod Kumar Bansal
                                                              ....Petitioner

                    Versus

M/s Radha Krishan Roshan Lal and others
                                                          ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present: - Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate,
           for the petitioner.

                    *****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 3.12.2009, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, vide which the cross-examination of Pawan Kumar PW, was treated to be nil.

The PW Pawan Kumar had filed his affidavit in examination- in-chief and presented himself for cross-examination. However, the petitioner did not cross-examine the witness. On request, the case was deferred and even on the adjourned date of hearing, Pawan Kumar was not cross-examined, in spite of costs having been imposed.

It was due to non-cross-examination of the witness present that the cross-examination was treated as nil. The plaintiff/respondent closed his evidence in affirmative.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order Civil Revision No. 354 of 2010 -2- on merits and prays that in the interest of justice, the petitioner may be granted one last opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court, subject to payment of costs.

In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and without going into the merits of the case, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to cross-examine PW Pawan Kumar on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court, for which date the learned trial Court is directed to summon the said witness for cross-examination. However, this shall be subject to payment of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) as costs.

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 02, 2010 R.S.