Smt. Raj Rani vs Sh. Sudarshan Bhalla and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. No. 16410-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 2.6.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panchkula, vide which evidence of the Petitioner-Plaintiff was closed.

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 evidence of Petitioner-Plaintiff was closed after granting 14 opportunities. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned.

However, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner wants to examine only one witness, namely, Arun Bhalla, who is vendor and is a necessary witness and, however, he could not come present on the date fixed due to death in his family. An application in this regard was also moved before learned trial Court. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity may be granted to Petitioner for examining this witness only at his own responsibility.

In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to Petitioner-Plaintiff to examine Arun Bhalla at his own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost.

Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to give one effective opportunity to Petitioner-Plaintiff to examine Arun Bhalla as a witness at his own responsibility subject to payment of `5,000/-as cost, which shall be a condition precedent.