Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1114 of 2013 Date of Decision : February 18, 2013 Hans Raj Chhabra and others ....Petitioners Versus The Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioneRs.T.P.S.MANN, J.
(Oral) The plaintiffs have filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the orders passed by the trial Court while closing their evidence.
On 16.11.2012, the trial Court, after noticing that PW1 Hans Raj was present and his statement recorded by the Commissioner and that no other witness was present, adjourned the proceedings to 18.12.2012 for the evidence of the plaintiffs at their own responsibility.
It was further made clear that it would remain as last opportunity and in case the evidence was not concluded on the next date of hearing, the same would be deemed to have been closed by an order of the Court.
On the next date, i.e.17.12.2012, when no PW was present, the trial Court declined the request for adjournment and closed the evidence by order.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 16.11.2012 when petitioner-Hans Raj had testified as PW1, his cross-examination was deferred on the request made by counsel for the defendants on the ground that he was busy in another matter before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division).Panchkula.
On the adjourned date, i.e.on Civil Revision No.1114 of 2013 -2- 17.12.2012, petitioner-Hans Raj PW1 was not well.
He was advised bed rest by the doctor due to severe back problem.
Accordingly, the counsel representing him informed the trial Court about his ailment and sought adjournment which request was declined by the said Court.
Counsel for the petitioners states that the fact that petitioner-Hans Raj was not well is borne out from the certificate (Annexure P-6) issued by Dr.
Harpreet Kaur, BAMs.MIMS of Chhabra Clinic, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.
Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of one more opportunity to petitioner-Hans Raj to appear before the trial Court for the purposes of his cross-examination.
Prima facie, it has been shown that petitioner-Hans Raj had been advised bed rest from 15.12.2012 to 30.12.2012 and for that reason it would not have been possible for him to appear before the trial Court for the purposes of his cross-examination.
However, it is not established as to whether the aforementioned certificate was produced before the trial Court on 17.12.2012 as no such reference is made in the order dated 17.12.2012.
Still, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to grant one more opportunity to PW1 Hans Raj for putting in appearance before the trial Court for the purposes of his cross-examination.
Resultantly, the revision is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to grant one more opportunity to PW1 Hans Raj to appear for the purposes of his cross-examination, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Panchkula.
( T.P.S.MANN ) February 18, 2013 JUDGE satish