Balwinder Singh Vs. Ajit Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1161574
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-13-2014
AppellantBalwinder Singh
RespondentAjit Singh
Excerpt:
120 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr no.5372 of 2014 date of decision: august 13, 2014 balwinder singh ...petitioner versus ajit singh ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh present: mr.kamal narula, advocate for the petitioner. **** inderjit singh, j. petitioner balwinder singh has filed this civil revision against ajit singh respondent under article 227 of the constitution of india for setting aside impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by learned civil judge (junior division) zira, vide which the evidence of the petitioner/defendant has been closed. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. from the record, i find that the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale has been filed by ajit singh against balwinder singh. as per the impugned order dated 31.07.2014, on 22.04.2014 evidence of the plaintiff was closed and case was adjourned to defendant evidence and since seven opportunities were granted to the defendant to conclude his evidence, vineet gulati201408.14 12:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr no.5372 of 2014 -2- therefore, further adjournment was declined as per the impugned order. further, i find that all the opportunities have been granted within three months by learned civil judge. it is settled law that the procedural law is to facilitate the substantial justice. if the defendant is not given further opportunity to produce the evidence, he will suffer irreparable loss. to do substantial justice between the parties and that their rights should be determined on merit, one opportunity to produce the evidence before the trial court can be granted. as regarding delay caused by the petitioner, the respondent can be compensated by way of costs. therefore, in the interest of justice, order dated 31.07.2014 passed by learned civil judge (junior division) zira is set aside. petitioner is allowed one opportunity to lead evidence at his own responsibility before the concerned court, subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost to the opposite party. however, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner by the concerned court on any ground. further, the concerned court in exceptional circumstances, can adjourn the case if it feels so, for one date, which may be the next working day. it is further observed that the present revision petition is decided without issuing notice to the respondent, who belongs to ferozepur, which may cause delay for his service, besides huge expenditure and will further cause delay in the disposal of the suit. however, the respondent is at liberty to approach this court within two months for modification of this order, if he feels that the petitioner has vineet gulati201408.14 12:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr no.5372 of 2014 -3- misrepresented this court by giving wrong facts. accordingly, the present revision petition stands disposed of with the above-said observations. a copy of this order be given under the signatures of bench secretary of this court. august 13, 2014 (inderjit singh) vgulati judge vineet gulati201408.14 12:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5372 of 2014 Date of decision: August 13, 2014 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Ajit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Kamal Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner Balwinder Singh has filed this civil revision against Ajit Singh respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Zira, vide which the evidence of the petitioner/defendant has been closed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale has been filed by Ajit Singh against Balwinder Singh.

As per the impugned order dated 31.07.2014, on 22.04.2014 evidence of the plaintiff was closed and case was adjourned to defendant evidence and since seven opportunities were granted to the defendant to conclude his evidence, VINEET GULATI201408.14 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.5372 of 2014 -2- therefore, further adjournment was declined as per the impugned order.

Further, I find that all the opportunities have been granted within three months by learned Civil Judge.

It is settled law that the procedural law is to facilitate the substantial justice.

If the defendant is not given further opportunity to produce the evidence, he will suffer irreparable loss.

To do substantial justice between the parties and that their rights should be determined on merit, one opportunity to produce the evidence before the trial Court can be granted.

As regarding delay caused by the petitioner, the respondent can be compensated by way of costs.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, order dated 31.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Zira is set aside.

Petitioner is allowed one opportunity to lead evidence at his own responsibility before the concerned Court, subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost to the opposite party.

However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner by the concerned Court on any ground.

Further, the concerned Court in exceptional circumstances, can adjourn the case if it feels so, for one date, which may be the next working day.

It is further observed that the present revision petition is decided without issuing notice to the respondent, who belongs to Ferozepur, which may cause delay for his service, besides huge expenditure and will further cause delay in the disposal of the suit.

However, the respondent is at liberty to approach this Court within two months for modification of this order, if he feels that the petitioner has VINEET GULATI201408.14 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.5372 of 2014 -3- misrepresented this Court by giving wrong facts.

Accordingly, the present revision petition stands disposed of with the above-said observations.

A copy of this order be given under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court.

August 13, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI201408.14 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh