Civil Revision No. 589 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 589 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 3.2.2009
Pritam Singh ..... Petitioner
vs
Rajinder Singh and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Padam Jain,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 6.1.2009 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala, whereby evidence of the
petitioner-defendant no.6 was closed by order.
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
suit as well.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence
of the plaintiffs was closed on 20.8.2007. Thereafter, the case was
adjourned for evidence of the defendants. On 26.3.2008, one DW was
present but due to the ailment of the counsel he was not examined and the
case was adjourned to 8.4.2008, on which date again one DW was present
but for the same reason, he could not be examined. On 20.5.2008, due to
Panchayat Election no DW was present and the case was adjourned for
13.6.2008. On the next date i.e. 13.6.2008 neither any DW was present nor
the costs were paid. Similar was the position on 2.8.2008. On 8.9.2008, 3
DWs where present but could not be cross-examined. However, on
1.11.2008 again last and final opportunity was granted subject to payment
of Rs. 500/- as costs as the counsel had not come to the court. On 6.1.2009
costs were not paid and an adjournment was sought, the court finding that
the sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner and
Civil Revision No. 589 of 2009 (2)
on the date fixed it was the last opportunity, did not grant any further
opportunity.
The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are
borne out from the record. The case is fixed for hearing before the court
below on 22.2.2009.
Considering the fact that on various dates of hearing, the
petitioner had been examining the witnesses produced by him though he had
not made serious efforts to complete his entire evidence as the DWs have
been produced in the court in piece meal and also that due to illness of his
counsel who had undergone nose surgery the case has to be adjourned
twice, by taking a lenient view, I find that it would be in the interest of
justice in case the petitioner is granted one opportunity for completing his
entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility on the date already fixed
i.e. 22.2.2009. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs
to the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioner shall also pay the costs imposed
by the trial court earlier, if not already paid.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision is
allowed and the impugned order dated 6.1.2009 is set aside.
3.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge