CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Subhash Thukral vs Raj Kumar and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 25 October 2010 · Citation: (2010) 10 SHI CK 0177

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Gupta, J
CASE NUMBER
CMPMO No. 131 of 2008
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

5 paragraphs · 350 words

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 21st April, 2008 whereby the evidence of the petitioner here-in-after referred to as the defendant has been closed.

2.

I have gone through the record and I find that though it appears that defendant had taken more than 2-3 years to get statements of his witnesses recorded, in fact on a number of occasions the matter was adjourned because the Presiding Officer was on leave and thereafter the matter was listed for proper order. I also find that at least three applications were filed after framing of issues which also led to certain delays. I find that the defendant had filed affidavits of the witnesses which he wanted to cross-examine but for crossexamination the said witnesses had not been produced despite three dates granted to him.

3.

Having held so, I am of the opinion that no party should be debarred from contesting its case on merits especially when the other side can be compensated by way of costs. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I allow the petition and grant one more opportunity to the defendant to produce his entire evidence for crossexamination on his own risk and responsibility.

4.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 29th November, 2010 and the learned trial Court shall fix the date for recording the statements of the defendant witnesses in the month of December, 2010/January, 2011. It will be the responsibility of the petitioner to produce his evidence on his own responsibility since the affidavits filed are only of the defendants. No other evidence shall be permitted to be led. This order is passed subject to the condition that the petitioner-defendant shall pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiff on the date next fixed before the trial Court. In case the costs are not paid then the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

5.

The Registry is directed to ensure that the record of the learned trial Court is sent back so as to reach well before the next date.