IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2886 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 2.5.2011
Joginder Pal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner
***
Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral)
CM No. 11479-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CR No. 2886 of 2011
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 23.2.2011
(Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar in
case No.2781 of 9.5.2006, vide which evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff
was closed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by
learned trial court.
The facts relevant for the decision of the present revision
petition are that suit for declaration was filed by the predecessor-in- interest
of the present petitioner namely Gurpal Singh, who died when the case was
fixed for evidence and the present petitioner was impleaded as legal
representative of the deceased plaintiff.
CR No.2886 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
after the petitioner was impleaded as party only one opportunity was
granted by learned trial court to adduce his evidence. Thereafter, his
evidence was closed. It is further contended that only petitioner remains to
be examined as witness and no other witness is to be examined.
The petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest had already
availed nine opportunities to lead evidence. Case pertains to the year 2006.
Hence, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any
illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order. However,
in view of the fact that the petitioner was impleaded as party after death of
his predecessor-in-interest and thereafter, only one opportunity was granted
to him to adduce evidence, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner
for the purpose and other party can be compensated by way of cost.
Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the
impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one effective
opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to examine himself as a witness
subject to payment of ` 5000/- as cost which shall be a condition precedent.
02.05.2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE