Surjit Kaur and Others vs Surinder Singh and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—C.M. No. 10543-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No. 2629 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 15.1.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dasuya, vide which evidence of Petitioners-Plaintiffs was closed by order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners-Plaintiffs and have gone through the whole record carefully including the various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that after impleading Petitioners as legal representatives of deceased-Plaintiff, they have already examined three witnesses and dates were also sought by counsel for the Defendants for cross-examination of the witnesses. It is further contended that Petitioners intend to examine one witness only, i.e., Balbir Singh, the attesting witness of the agreement.

Perusal of file shows that after Petitioners were impleaded as legal representatives of deceased-Plaintiff, they had availed eight opportunities for evidence, when the same was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order, however, 2-3 dates were also given by learned trial Court on the request of counsel for the Defendants for the purpose of cross-examination.

In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to Petitioners-Plaintiffs to examine only one witness, namely, Balbir Singh, at their 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 grant one effective opportunity to Petitioners-Plaintiffs to examine one witness, as aforementioned, at their own responsibility subject to payment of 5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent.

Disposed of accordingly.