High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sardul Singh vs Hardayal And Others on 17 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sardul Singh vs Hardayal And Others on 17 December, 2009
C.R. 1199 of 2008                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT    FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
        AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                                         C.R. 1199 of 2008
                                         Date of decision:- 17.12.2009

Sardul Singh

                                                          petitioner
                          vs

Hardayal and others

                                                          Respondent

Present:     Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


M.M.S.BEDI,J.

Vide impugned order dated 20.11.2007 the evidence of the

defendant- petitioner has been closed by the trial court by observing that

several effective opportunities have already been given to the defendants

to conclude their evidence.

Despite notice issued to plaintiff- respondent No.1, no one has

put in appearance. Respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte on

3.11.2008. The objective for closing of the evidence of the defendant-

petitioner, mentioned by the trial court, seems to be reasonable on the

face of it but learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner has submitted

that no evidence of the defendants has been produced on the record and

that if only one opportunity is given to the defendant- petitioner to produce

the entire evidence at his own responsibility, the interest of justice would be

adequately met and the defendants will get an opportunity to contest the

claim of the plaintiff- respondent No.1, raised in the suit for a declaration

pertaining to the suit property, which is more than 200 kanals. The trial
C.R. 1199 of 2008 2

court had been restrained from passing the final order on 16.9.2008 by this

court. An attempt had been made to serve respondent No.1 through his

counsel also but despite the proceedings having been stalled for the last

more than one year, plaintiff- respondents have not come forward to

contest the revision petition. In the interest of justice, I allow this revision

petition and order dated 20.11.2007 is hereby set aside and it is ordered

that the defendants will be permitted to produce their entire evidence at

their own responsibility on one date of hearing, fixed by the trial court. The

trial court may also permit the defendants to tender in evidence any

document in accordance with the procedure of law by giving one more

opportunity within the period of one month after the receipt of a certified

copy of this order subject to payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The

costs will be paid by the defendant- petitioner by putting in appearance

before the trial court on 16.1.2010. In case costs are not paid, this revision

petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and the trial court will be at

liberty to proceed in accordance with law. However, in case the costs are

paid on 16.1.2010, the trial court will fix one date for production of the

entire evidence of the defendants at their own responsibility.

December 17,2009                                    (M.M.S.BEDI)
TSM                                                     JUDGE