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
8 paragraphs · 421 wordsL.N. Mittal, J.
CM No. 23052-CII of 2012
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case
Defendant No. 1-Prem Devi has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition impugning order dated 24.08.2012 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar. This Court vide order dated 22.05.2012 Annexure P-1 allowed respondent No. 1 herein (legal representative of original plaintiff-Mohan Lal since deceased) to lead additional evidence subject to payment of ` 20,000/- as costs. It was ordered that plaintiff would be granted opportunities to produce/prove the documents, subject to payment of ` 20,000/- as costs. The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 03.08.2012 on which date the documents will be permitted to be produced/proved on record.
On 03.08.2012, the trial Court after noticing order Annexure P-1 of this Court simply adjourned the case to 24.08.2012 for additional evidence of plaintiff. However, on 24.08.2012, additional evidence of the plaintiff was not present and the case was adjourned to 20.09.2012 vide order dated 24.08.2012 Annexure P-2 which is under challenge in this revision petition at the hands of defendant No. 1.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that further adjournment on 24.08.2012 could not be granted by the trial Court to the plaintiff for additional evidence. The contention cannot be accepted. Order Annexure P-1 passed by this Court speaks of ''opportunities'' (in plural). Consequently it cannot be said that only one opportunity was to be granted to the plaintiff for additional evidence. From order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the trial Court as reproduced in the grounds of revision, it is apparent that on that date, the trial Court simply adjourned the case to 24.08.2012 for leading additional evidence and thus it was first opportunity for additional evidence of the plaintiff on 24.08.2012. Mere grant of second opportunity to the plaintiff for additional evidence does not vitiate the impugned order in any manner. The trial Court has already granted last opportunity to the plaintiff for additional evidence to be adduced on 20.09.2012. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned order Annexure P-2 passed by the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.