Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs Amarjeet Kaur And Others on 8 September, 2010
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C.R. No.5212 of 2010 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.5212 of 2010 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 08.09.2010.
Lakhwinder Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Amarjeet Kaur and others ......Respondents
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. K. D. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.22566-CII of 2010 The application is allowed and amended revision petition is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.22567-CII of 2010 The application is allowed and Annexure P-2 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No.22568-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case.
Lakhwinder Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 03.03.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala thereby closing evidence of petitioner and respondent No.2 herein by Court order and also challenging order dated 12.05.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by the Claims Tribunal C.R. No.5212 of 2010 (O & M) -2- whereby application moved by petitioner and respondent No.2 herein for additional evidence has been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Claim petition has been filed by Amarjeet Kaur- respondent No.1 herein impleading Darshan Singh-respondent No.2 herein as respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle, Lakhwinder Singh petitioner herein as respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3-Insurance Company herein as respondent No.3 insurer of the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that 4 effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein for their evidence and thereupon their evidence was closed by Court order dated 03.03.2010 Annexure P-2. Application moved by the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein for additional evidence has been dismissed vide order Annexure P-1. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility on payment of heavy costs. The petitioner has to be subjected to heavy costs because initially he did not challenge order dated 03.03.2010 and filed the instant revision petition only to challenge order dated 12.05.2010. By amended revision petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated C.R. No.5212 of 2010 (O & M) -3- 03.03.2010 also. Even the original revision petition was filed belatedly. There is also no explanation why the petitioner could not lead his evidence on 4 dates of hearing as granted by the Claims Tribunal initially. For all these reasons, the petitioner has to be subjected to heavy costs.
I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the case and also to save the respondents from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the learned Claims Tribunal is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs precedent payable to claimant-respondent No.1. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non- appearance of any witness despite service or on any other ground whatsoever.
08.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE