Shakuntla Vs. Krishan Lal - Court Judgment

CR 293.of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR 293.of 2013 Date of Decision : May 22, 2013 Shakuntla .....Petitioner VERSUS Krishan Lal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner.

---<<><--- T.P.S.MANN, J.

The defendant has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 27.4.2013 passed by Addl.

Civil Judge (Sr.Division).Rohtak, whereby her evidence stands closed by the Court below for the reason that on the said date, no DW was present and an adjournment was sought but keeping in view the fact that she had already availed nine effictive opportunities, including three last opportunities and the case pertained to the year 2008, no justification was found for further adjournment for the said purpose.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already examined her entire evidence except Pawan Kumar, who is one of the witnesses of the agreement to sell in question.

The other witness of the agreement was produced by the plaintiff-respondent.

However, for reasons beyond her control, the petitioner could not examine Pawan Kumar as her witness.

The testimony of Pawan Kumar is crucial to the outcome of the suit.

Moreover, the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent for the delay, if any, caused for CR 293.of 2013 -2- adjudication of the matter.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs Union of India, AIR 200.SC 335.wherein it was held that even in the cases which might not strictly come within the category of circumstances beyond the control of a party, the Court can resort to the provision of higher cost including punitive cost and grant more time for examining remaining evidence so as to avoid injustice being done, this Court is of the considered view that one more opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to examine aforementioned Pawan Kumar as her witness.

Resultantly, the revision is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to grant one more opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to examine Pawan Kumar as her witness, subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent.

It shall, however, be the responsibility of the petitioner to produce Pawan Kumar before the Court at her own responsibility.

(T.P.S.MANN) May 22, 2013 JUDGE Pds.