CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Joginder Pal Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 05 P&H CK 0080

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 2886 of 2011 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 346 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

CM No. 11479-CII of 2011

1.

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CR No. 2886 of 2011

2.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 23.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar in case No. 2781 of 9.5.2006, vide which evidence of the Petitioner-Plaintiff was closed.

3.

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.

4.

The facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that suit for declaration was filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the present Petitioner namely Gurpal Singh, who died when the case was fixed for evidence and the present Petitioner was impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff.

5.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after the Petitioner was impleaded as party only one opportunity was granted by learned trial court to adduce his evidence. Thereafter, his evidence was closed. It is further contended that only Petitioner remains to be examined as witness and no other witness is to be examined.

6.

The Petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest had already availed nine opportunities to lead evidence. Case pertains to the year 2006. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order. However, in view of the fact that the Petitioner was impleaded as party after death of his predecessor-in-interest and thereafter, only one opportunity was granted to him to adduce evidence, one opportunity can be granted to the Petitioner for the purpose and other party can be compensated by way of cost.

7.

Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the Petitioner-Plaintiff to examine himself as a witness subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as cost which shall be a condition precedent.