Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1119 of 2014 Date of Decision: 12.2.2014 Daljit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Harbans Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present : Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
(Oral) Mr.Namit Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the order sheets where plaintiff's witnesses were present, but were not cross-examined by the defendants.
At the end, the Court was constrained to impose cost of Rs.500/- on the defendants for failing to cross-examine Daljit Singh who was bound down by an order of the court dated 7.9.2011.
Thereafter, three years have been spent in trying to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of Didar Singh as party-defendants.
Didar Singh was the original owner of the property from which title is claimed by the plaintiff.
The period spent on serving the Legal Representatives was 16.12.2011 to Khan Md.Firoz 2014.02.19 17:04 12.3.2013.
On 15.7.2013, Daljit Singh was partly cross-examined as it appears I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CR No.1119 of 2014 :2: from the order-sheet which is at page 49 of the paper-book.
Thereafter, the defendants filed an application before the trial court for adjourning the suit sine die on the ground that the title dispute is pending in the Supreme Court which may affect the result of the suit.
The application praying for adjourning the case sine die was dismissed by the trial court.
Thereafter vide the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-5).the evidence of the petitioner has been closed, after partial cross-examination.
The trial court has in one order sheet which is at page 94 of this paper-book found that the plaintiff has taken 10 years to conclude the entire evidence, but has failed to notice the chequered history of the case and the delay could not be lightly placed on the shoulder of the petitioner/plaintiff, looking to the conduct of the defendant throughout the period.
The other reason given for denying adjournment for further cross- examination is that there are administrative directions of this Court to dispose of Action Plan Cases till 31.12.2013.
Accordingly, no justification has been found to adjourn the suit for plaintiff's evidence.
The evidence has been closed.
Looking at the chequered history of this case, I do not think that opportunity of further cross-examination should have been denied to the petitioner and the trial court laboured under some administrative directions to some how conclude the Action Plan Cases before 31.12.2013.
Though earnestness shown by the Civil Judge (Jr.
Division).Jalandhar is welcome, but it should not be at the cost of justice.
In the totality of facts and circumstances presented in this case, I am inclined to think that the petitioner deserves one effective opportunity at least to conclude his evidence through cross- examination by the defendant.
I do not think that in this petition, notice is required to be issued to the defendants/respondents, looking at their conduct of having taken several adjournments to cross-examine Daljit Singh.
In any case, Khan Md.Firoz 2014.02.19 17:04 no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by setting aside the impugned I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CR No.1119 of 2014 :3: order as they cannot be heard to urge that the petitioner should be denied justice.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-5) is set aside.
Suit to proceed.
With the aforesaid directions, this revision petition is disposed of.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE122.2014 MFK Khan Md.Firoz 2014.02.19 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh