Bhupinder Singh vs Smt. Raj Rani and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. Nos. 6047-48-CII of 2011

Requests for placing on record Annexures. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of

accordingly.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2011,

vide which the application moved by the Petitioner-Plaintiff for permitting him to be cross-examined by the Defendants has been dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by

learned trial Court.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by present Petitioner-Plaintiff, which was

contested by Respondent-Defendants. Issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence. Case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and

arguments, when the present application has been filed for permitting the Petitioner-Plaintiff to be cross-examined by Respondent-Defendants,

which was declined by learned trial Court by observing as under:

Perusal of file reveals that Plaintiff''s evidence was closed by the Court on 10.3.2009 after granting him 17 opportunities including several last

opportunities for concluding his evidence, but he failed to conclude the same. Number of opportunities granted to Plaintiff itself speaks volume

about the time given to Plaintiff for leading his evidence. Therefore, today he cannot take the plea that due to inadvertence, cross-examination of

Plaintiff could not be commenced. Plaintiff never filed revision against the order whereby his evidence was closed by the court. He has filed this

application at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments only to delay the matter. In these circumstances, finding no merits in the application, the

same is hereby dismissed.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Plaintiff that though counsel for the Petitioner was negligent in not producing the

Petitioner-Plaintiff for cross-examination and however, counsel for the Defendants was also negligent in not insisting for cross-examination of

Plaintiff and that even Court should have passed the specific order for cross-examination of present Petitioner-Plaintiff.

Be that as it may, sufficient opportunities have been granted to Petitioner-Plaintiff to conclude his evidence. Evidence of the Petitioner was

closed as per his statement. However, only prayer of Petitioner-Plaintiff is that he wants himself to be cross-examined by Respondent-Defendants,

as he has already filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief before the learned trial Court.

Hence, in view of these facts, one more opportunity for the purpose of cross-examination can be granted to Petitioner-Plaintiff and the other

party can be compensated by way of cost.

As a sequel to my above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to

grant one effective opportunity to present Petitioner-Plaintiff for getting himself to be cross-examined by counsel for the Respondent Defendants.

However, Petitioner-Plaintiff is burdened with cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent.

Disposed of accordingly