Parkash Rani vs Motia Rani and Others

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The plaintiff has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated

4.6.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby her request for grant of one more opportunity for completing her evidence

had been declined. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that Shri Vishal Gupta, Advocate, who put in appearance on behalf of the

plaintiff before the trial Court on 4.6.2012 filed the power of attorney. However, as no PW was present in the Court despite it being the last

opportunity to the plaintiff, the Court observed that the plaintiff had been intentionally delaying in concluding her evidence by engaging new counsel

and requesting for date. Moreover, the case pertained to the year 1999 and fell under the category of Action Plan Cases. Therefore, no

justification was found to adjourn the case further for evidence of the plaintiff, which was, accordingly, closed by order.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner had initially engaged Shri M.K. Sharma, Advocate to represent her

in the suit. However, Shri M.K. Sharma, Advocate unfortunately expired on 7.3.2012. On learning about the said fact, the petitioner, being a

widow and a senior citizen, filed an application for free legal aid. Her request was accepted by District Legal Services Authority and Shri Karan

Singh, Advocate was provided to her on 6.4.2012. Said Shri Karan Singh refused to represent the petitioner in the suit on the ground that he had

no time to devote for her case. The petitioner then, once again, approached the District Legal Services Authority and the services of Shri

Simardeep Singh, Advocate were provided to her. Shri Simardeep Singh, Advocate, appeared before the trial Court on 30.4.2012 and filed the

power of attorney, besides paying the costs. Later on, said Shri Simardeep Singh, Advocate refused to represent the petitioner. Left with no other

option, the petitioner approached the District Legal Services Authority, once again, for providing her the services of another Advocate. Pursuant to

the same, Shri Vishal Gupta, Advocate was directed to represent the petitioner. Said Shri Vishal Gupta, Advocate put in appearance before the

trial Court on 4.6.2012 and prayed for one more adjournment so that the petitioner may complete the recording of her evidence, but his prayer

was declined and the evidence of the petitioner closed by order of the Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has only to produce her

witness, namely, Paramjit Singh before the trial Court for the purposes of his cross-examination on behalf of the defendants as he had already

tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on 12.11.2008. Apart from said Paramjit Singh, the petitioner does not intend to examine any

other witness.

Without going into the merits of the case but keeping in view the hardship faced by the plaintiff-petitioner which led to her requesting the District

Legal Services Authority repeatedly for providing her services of an advocate, and the advocates so provided, later on, refused to represent her in

the suit, I find that a case is made out for granting one more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to produce her witness, namely, Paramjit Singh

before the trial Court for the purposes of his cross-examination by the defendants.

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the trial Court to grant one last opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner for producing her

witness Paramjit Singh before the trial Court for the purposes of her cross-examination. However, it shall be the responsibility of the plaintiff to

secure the presence of Paramjit Singh before the trial Court by taking dasti process.