Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.87 seconds)M/S Ishwar Chand Suresh Kumar vs Smt. Sunita Garg on 23 January, 2009
This rule makes it clear that at the most, three adjournments shall be granted to the party during hearing of suit to lead the evidence. The legislative mandate is clear covering civil suit before the civil courts that three hearings have to be granted to the parties at the most. Herein, civil court granted three opportunities to complainants to lead evidence, but they failed to conclude the same. Counsel for OP closed the evidence in the end on 22.07.2014. Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court has as held in "Suresh Kumar versus Smt. Daryali, reported in 1996(2) Civil Court Cases 646" that it is duty of the party to attend the proceedings along with his Advocate- merely by engaging counsel, the party is not absolved of his responsibility to attend the proceedings. If the counsel withdraws for want of instructions from his client, the court is under no obligation to serve him with another notice at public expenses. It was for the petitioner to look after his interest in the case by personal appearance or by engaging the counsel. If party engages the counsel without giving full instructions to him and suffers an adverse order, then blame squarely lies on that party.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Vijay B Verma vs Ludhiana Oil Expellers Cooperative H B S ... on 8 January, 2016
Similarly, Single Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court has also held in "Vijay B. Verma versus Ludhiana Oil Expellers Cooperative House Building Society and others" reported in 2016(1) PLR 823 that Members of legal profession enjoy immunity against being prosecuted for acting on behalf of claimants and impermissible for suit to be filed also against lawyer, who represented plaintiff that suit did not make full disclosure of all facts and plaint was allowed on fake contest. In this case, complainants himself admitted in the FIR lodged by them that someone had played fraud with them, as someone else instead of Rajan Jindal sold the land to them impersonating as Rajan Jindal before registering authorities. The complainants failed to bring their own evidence and tried to shift buck on OP only. We are of this view that there is no willful negligence or deficiency in service of OP in this case, because the complainants themselves failed to bring evidence on three hearings granted by civil court to them for this purpose. It is paramount duty of the concerned party to produce the evidence at its own end, if it has not summoned the witnesses through the agency of the court. Not credible to believe that complainants were kept uninformed by OP about the status of the case, 'a fortiori, when they themselves admitted this fact in the complaint lodged by them in the court that some imposter executed the sale deed in their favour as Rajan Jindal. Even their appeal has not been accepted on this ground by ADJ, SAS Nagar, Mohali, otherwise the case would have been remanded to Lower Court for providing due opportunities of leading evidence to complainants in that civil suit. The dismissal of this civil appeal of the complainants by ADJ Mohali is also a pointer to this effect that there is no deficiency in service of OP. As there is no cogent evidence on the record by complainants to prove deficiency in service and negligence of OP in conducting their case and evidence of the complainants is equally rebutted by evidence of OP on the record.
The State Of Punjab vs Sahil Mittal on 18 January, 2016
Some criminal complaint was pending in the court of Derabassi titled as State Vs. Sahil and Jagdish Garg vs. Sahil Gupta on 25.11.2014 and on that date, they along with their father-in-law Jagdish Garg enquired about the status of the case titled as Rajan Goyal vs. Prem Goyal, but OP informed them that it has been decided, as decreed in the month of September 2014, which surprised them. Thereafter, complainants accompanied with Jagdish Garg their father-in-law had withdrawn all the cases, being conducted by OP on their behalf and they also applied for certified copy of the order dated 25.11.2014 after engaging another counsel Sh. Bharat Bhushan Ahuja, Advocate of Derabassi, who immediately applied for certified copies of the entire case file and procured the same on 26.11.2014 along with all the interim orders passed by the court of Derabassi. After going through the contents of the entire case file, it transpired that OP had closed the evidence on behalf of complainant without their consent and knowledge, since the case was fixed for evidence of the complainants on 08.07.2014, 14.07.2014 and 22.07.2014 and he closed the evidence. The above said activities of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on his part, besides willful misconduct. The complainants also served the legal notice dated 23.12.2014 to OP. but of no use. The complainants have, thus, filed the complaint directing OPs to pay Rs.40 lac towards the amount of sale consideration, besides Rs.1,12,000/- as stamp papers expenses, Rs.18,000/- as registration expenses, Rs.40,000/- as compensation, Rs.1 lac spent on construction of Rooms and Hand Pump, Rs.30,000/- as misc expenses and other reliefs as mentioned in the complaint.
1