Skip to content


Civil Revision No.5414 of 2012 (Oandm) Vs. M/S Asia Resorts Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Civil Revision No.5414 of 2012 (Oandm)

Respondent

M/S Asia Resorts Ltd. and Others

Excerpt:


.....has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. it appears.a suit for mandatory injunction was instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner to direct the defendants to provide accommodation to him and his family at a resort in manali. parties filed their respective singh rajpal 2013.09.30 15:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr-5414-2012 2 pleadings before the court. plaintiff was given opportunity to lead evidence. he submitted an affidavit to be treated as his examination-in- chief. on 14.5.2012 petitioner was not present in court. his evidence was, thus, closed by order. keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that one last opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence. trial court shall afford one opportunity to petitioner subject to his own risk and responsibility. this, however, will be subject to payment of rs.7000/- as costs to be remitted to the respondents. impugned order is, thus, set-aside. revision petition is allowed in these terms.(rajan gupta).....

Judgment:


CR-5414-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No.5414 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.9.2013 Ravinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus M/s Asia Resorts LTD.& others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.R.S.Walia, Advocate for the respondents.

Rajan Gupta, J.

(oral) Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Jr.

Division).Ludhiana whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order.

According to him, on number of dates petitioner was present.

However, his cross-examination was deferred on request of counsel representing the defendants.

Thus, impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

Prayer has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appeaRs.a suit for mandatory injunction was instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner to direct the defendants to provide accommodation to him and his family at a resort in Manali.

Parties filed their respective Singh Rajpal 2013.09.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR-5414-2012 2 pleadings before the court.

Plaintiff was given opportunity to lead evidence.

He submitted an affidavit to be treated as his examination-in- chief.

On 14.5.2012 petitioner was not present in court.

His evidence was, thus, closed by order.

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that one last opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence.

Trial court shall afford one opportunity to petitioner subject to his own risk and responsibility.

This, however, will be subject to payment of Rs.7000/- as costs to be remitted to the respondents.

Impugned order is, thus, set-aside.

Revision petition is allowed in these terMs.(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE309.2013 'rajpal' Singh Rajpal 2013.09.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //