Malik Singh vs Madan Gopal And Others on 26 November, 2009

C.R. No. 6896 of 2009                                                  [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                CHANDIGARH.

                                 C.R. No. 6896 of 2009

                                 Date of Decision: November 26, 2009



Malik Singh

                                      .....Petitioner

              Vs.

Madan Gopal and others

                                      .....Respondents


CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                          -.-

Present:-     Mr.Ravindra Jain, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

                    -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

It is contended that the petitioner wants to examine only one

witness-Ojesh Sharma who is an Oath Commissioner and was present in the

Court pursuant to the notice issued to him after depositing of the requisite

fee. His examination was deferred on the day when Om Pahwa was cross-

examined. It is claimed that he is a witness to the agreement of sale. The

suit is pending since the year 2000. The amendment of Civil Procedure

Code vide Amendment Act No.2 of 2002 deleting Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC
C.R. No. 6896 of 2009 [2]

will have prospective operation. It is apparent that interest of justice would

be adequately met in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to

examine Ojesh Sharma at his own responsibility subject to payment of costs

of Rs.5000/- to the respondents.

The petition is allowed in limine to save the respondents from

litigation expenses. It is ordered that in case the petitioner produces Ojesh

Sharma as witness at his own responsibility subject to payment of costs of

Rs.5000/-, he will be permitted to examine the said witness as the said

witness is stated to be an attesting witness to the agreement of sale which is

the point of main controversy between the parties. It will be open to the

trial Court to fix one date to enable the plaintiff- petitioner to examine Ojesh

Sharma. It is made clear that in case the said witness is not produced at his

own responsibility or costs is not paid, this revision petition will be deemed

to have been dismissed.

Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

November 26, 2009                                    (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                                JUDGE