Present: Mr. A.K.Jaiswal Advcoate Vs. Lovleen Nijjar and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090361
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-30-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. A.K.Jaiswal Advcoate
RespondentLovleen Nijjar and Others
Excerpt:
cr no.5550 of 2013 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr no.5550 of 2013 date of decision:30.09.2013. amandeep singh ....petitioner versus lovleen nijjar and others .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2) to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.a.k.jaiswal, advcoate, for the petitioner. mr.hitesh kaplish, advocate, for respondents no.1 to 3. **** paramjeet singh, j. (oral) instant civil revision has been filed under article 227 of the constitution of india for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2013 passed by learned motor accidents claims tribunal, kapurthala whereby application moved by the petitioner (respondent no.4 before the tribunal) for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondents no.1 to 3 herein kumar parveen 2013.10.01 16:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh cr no.5550 of 2013 2 filed a claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the tune of rs.1,20,00,00/- from the petitioner and respondents no.4 to 6. during the pendency of said petition, the petitioner filed application for leading additional evidence. it is alleged in the application that satinderjit singh (since deceased) during his life-time was involved in terrorist activities which shows that he was quite stubborn and adamant in nature. both these facts are required to be proved. it is further alleged that respondent no.1 herein has placed on record of the learned tribunal fabricated j form of m/s.atwal enterprises. the petitioner moved application for leading the additional evidence to prove these facts by calling the following witnesses: (a) clerk, govt. senior secondary school bhula rai along with complete service record of lovleen nijjar including character police verification through d.m.(b) clerk, market committee, phagwara regarding ownership/partnership of firm m/s atwal enterprises. (c ) munim of m/s atwal enterprises along with account books. vide impugned order dated 05.09.2013, the said application has been dismissed by learned motor accidents claims tribunal, kapurthala. hence, this revision petition. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. admittedly, learned motor accidents claims tribunal, kapurthala has discussed the evidence sought to be led on merits without kumar parveen 2013.10.01 16:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh cr no.5550 of 2013 3 having the evidence before it. the observations made in impugned order dated 05.09.2013 are apparently against the settled principles of law. the petitioner wants to lead documentary evidence from the various sources mentioned hereinabove. in view of section 55 of the indian evidence act, evidence as to character of any person is relevant to assess the amount of damages which he ought to receive. in the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one effective opportunity is given to the petitioner for producing additional evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of rs.30,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondents no.1 to 3. the petitioner is directed to lead additional evidence on 21.10.2013 at his own risk and responsibility. however, he will be at liberty to take the dasti summonses of the above named witnesses from the trial court for effecting service upon them for 21.10.2013. respondents no1. to 3-petitioners shall also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if they so desire, by granting 10 days' time and thereafter the case shall be decided within 15 days. for the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 05.09.2013 is set aside. the revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.(paramjeet singh) judge september 30, 2013 parveen kumar kumar parveen 2013.10.01 16:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

CR No.5550 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5550 of 2013 Date of Decision:30.09.2013.

Amandeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus Lovleen Nijjar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.A.K.Jaiswal, Advcoate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for respondents no.1 to 3.

**** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

(Oral) Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala whereby application moved by the petitioner (respondent no.4 before the Tribunal) for leading additional evidence has been dismissed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondents no.1 to 3 herein Kumar Parveen 2013.10.01 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.5550 of 2013 2 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,00,00/- from the petitioner and respondents no.4 to 6.

During the pendency of said petition, the petitioner filed application for leading additional evidence.

It is alleged in the application that Satinderjit Singh (since deceased) during his life-time was involved in terrorist activities which shows that he was quite stubborn and adamant in nature.

Both these facts are required to be proved.

It is further alleged that respondent no.1 herein has placed on record of the learned Tribunal fabricated J Form of M/S.Atwal Enterprises.

The petitioner moved application for leading the additional evidence to prove these facts by calling the following witnesses: (a) Clerk, Govt.

Senior Secondary School Bhula Rai along with complete service record of Lovleen Nijjar including Character Police Verification through D.M.(b) Clerk, Market Committee, Phagwara regarding ownership/partnership of Firm M/s Atwal Enterprises.

(c ) Munim of M/s Atwal Enterprises along with Account Books.

Vide impugned order dated 05.09.2013, the said application has been dismissed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala.

Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala has discussed the evidence sought to be led on merits without Kumar Parveen 2013.10.01 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.5550 of 2013 3 having the evidence before it.

The observations made in impugned order dated 05.09.2013 are apparently against the settled principles of law.

The petitioner wants to lead documentary evidence from the various sources mentioned hereinabove.

In view of Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence as to character of any person is relevant to assess the amount of damages which he ought to receive.

In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one effective opportunity is given to the petitioner for producing additional evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondents no.1 to 3.

The petitioner is directed to lead additional evidence on 21.10.2013 at his own risk and responsibility.

However, he will be at liberty to take the dasti summonses of the above named witnesses from the trial Court for effecting service upon them for 21.10.2013.

Respondents no1.

to 3-petitioners shall also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if they so desire, by granting 10 days' time and thereafter the case shall be decided within 15 days.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 05.09.2013 is set aside.

The revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terMs.(Paramjeet Singh) Judge September 30, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.10.01 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh