Judgment:
C.R.No.6100 of 2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr.No.112 Case No.: C.R.No.6100 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision : Oct.
07, 2013 Hakam Singh ...Petitioner versus Jaspal Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL * * * Present : Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
* * * L.N.MITTAL, J.
(Oral) : C.M.No.20395-CII of 2013 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case : Plaintiff Hakam Singh has filed this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 20.07.2013 (Annexure P-3).passed by the trial court, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner by court order.
Monika 2013.10.08 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No.6100 of 2013 (O&M) 2 I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer.
Perusal of details of dates of hearing in the trial court for evidence of plaintiff-petitioner reveals that the plaintiff was granted seven opportunities in all for his evidence.
The plaintiff appeared as his own witness on 01.08.2012 and his examination-in-chief was recorded.
His cross-examination was deferred as counsel for defendants/respondents was not available.
Again on the next date of hearing i.e.12.09.2012, the plaintiff was not cross-examined.
On one of the subsequent dates of hearing i.e.on 10.04.2013, plaintiff's counsel could not appear as his daughter was admitted in hospital, and therefore, proxy counsel prayed for adjournment.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find that there is sufficient justification for granting another opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility, but on payment of costs.
I intend to impose only token costs on the petitioner because he Monika 2013.10.08 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No.6100 of 2013 (O&M) 3 himself is suffering by delay in the suit.
Moreover, contesting defendants No.1 and 2 are none else, but sons of the plaintiff-petitioner himself.
I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to defendants-respondents so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents-defendants of the expenses they may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to them.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed.
Trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs precedent.
Oct.
07, 2013 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE Monika 2013.10.08 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh