Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 1.4.2009
Babu Lal ..... Petitioner
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the
learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order
of the court.
For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it
appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would
unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the
reference as well.
The proceedings in the present case arise out of a petition under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the petitioner and
other claimants.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses
to whom the petitioner wanted to examine are official witnesses and were
not present inspite of service. For securing the presence of one of the
witnesses, the court also issued non-bailable warrants for more than two
times and when the said witness appeared he did not bring the whole record
and the case was adjourned. On 27.2.2009, counsel for the petitioner was
not available and the court granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to
produce his evidence on 10.3.2009. On 10.3.2009, the court closed the
evidence of the petitioner by order. He further submitted that in case one
opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on
the date fixed.
Civil Revision No. 1837 of 2009 (2)
The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are
borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was merely
seeking adjournments and not leading evidence rather after his evidence
started on 9.3.2007, evidence was being led. As the witnesses who were
produced or the petitioner wanted to produce are official witnesses. As is
evident from the zimni orders, he has not tried to delay the proceedings but
due to the fault of the official witnesses, he could not examine them. The
case is stated to be fixed before the learned court below on 10.4.2009.
Considering the fact that the claim in the petition is for
determination of fair value of the acquired land and also that the petitioner
is not at all fault for not producing the witnesses, as a matter of indulgence,
while setting aside the impugned order dated 10.3.2009, closing the
evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one
opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date already
fixed by the court. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity
shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete his entire
evidence on the date fixed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get summons
issued for any official witness.
The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated
above.
1.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge