Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI DUTT DUMRA versus S.P.GOYAL.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Dutt Dumra v. S.P.Goyal. - CR-6187-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 11984 (5 December 2006)

Civil Revision No.6187 of 2006.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Civil Revision No.6187 of 2006.

Date of decision:28.11.2006.

Hari Dutt Dumra

...Petitioner.

Versus

S.P.Goyal.

...Respondent.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.Aman Bahri Advocate for the petitioner.

...

Judgment.

S. N. Aggarwal, J.

S. P. Goyal filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.9.1987 executed by the petitioner in his favour. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner.

Issues were framed.

The respondent has closed his evidence.

When the turn of the evidence of the petitioner (defendant in the learned trial Court) came, the petitioner filed an application Civil Revision No.6187 of 2006.

under Order 26 Rule 1 read with Section 151 PC with the prayer that his statement be recorded through a Commission at his house as he was a senior citizen of around 92 years of age and the right side of his hip was fractured on 2.6.2006. This application was accepted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.9.2006 (Annexure P-2). Shri M.C.Sehgal was appointed as Local Commissioner and the statement of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded at his house by the Local Commissioner. The statement of the petitioner was recorded partly on 13.10.2006, 19.10.2006, 22.10.206, 23.10.2006, 24.10.200 and 28.10.2006. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 30.10.2006 but was cancelled as the grandson of the petitioner had expired. Then the case was adjourned to 4.11.2006 by the Local Commissioner when his statement was recorded partly.

However, on 6.11.2006, the respondent filed an application for recording the statement of the petitioner in the Court premises or in the office of the Local Commissioner and to appoint another person as the Local Commissioner. It was opposed by the petitioner. However, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure P-6) rejected the prayer of the respondent for changing the Local Commissioner but directed that the remaining part of the statement of the petitioner be recorded by the Local Commissioner in his office on Sundays. Another application was filed by the respondent on 11.11.2006 for permission to cross-examine the petitioner Civil Revision No.6187 of 2006.

personally in the Bar Room of the Lawyers Complex at Ludhiana. This application was allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.11.2006 (Annexure P-7) by which the respondent was permitted to cross-examine the petitioner himself and cross-examination was ordered to be recorded in the Bar Room of Lawyers Complex Ludhiana.

Hence, the present petition.

The respondent was ordered to be served by taking Dasti summons. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has been served through his son Sanjeev Kumar and also produced the summons on the Court file. This amounts to valid service on the respondent. None is present on behalf of the respondent. He is proceeded against ex parte.

This civil suit pending in the trial Court since May,1988 has to be decided by 31.12.2006 by the learned trial Court under the orders passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.3516 of 2006.

As discussed above, the statement of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded at his residence by appointing Shri M.C.Sehgal as Local Commissioner vide order dated 18.9.2006 (Annexure P-2).

However, by the impugned order dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure P-6), the statement has been ordered to be recorded in the office of the Local Commissioner. By a subsequent order dated 11.11.2006, (Annexure P- 7), the cross-examination was ordered to be recorded by the respondent Civil Revision No.6187 of 2006.

himself in the Bar Room of the Lawyers Complex, Ludhiana.

Since the petitioner is a senior citizen of more than 90 years of age and since he is medically crippled, it was for that reason that his statement was ordered to be recorded at his residence vide order dated 18.9.2006 through a Commission. Therefore, modification of this order by subsequent order dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure P-6) and 11.11.2006 (Annexure P-7) is not justified by which his statement has been ordered to be recorded in the office of the Local Commissioner or in the Bar Room. If the petitioner could come in the office of the Local Commissioner or if he could come to the Bar Room of Lawyers Complex,then the petitioner can be asked to make his statement in the Court Room as well. Keeping in view the old age of the petitioner and his physical incapacitation, there was no justification to change the venue for recording the statement of the petitioner. To that extent, orders dated 10.11.2006 and 11.11.2006 are set aside. The statement of the petitioner shall be recorded at his house as was being recorded under the order dated 18.9.2006 earlier. However, vide order dated 11.11.2006, the respondent has been permitted to cross-examine the petitioner himself. That part of the order is left undisturbed.

The learned trial Court will now fix the date for recording the remaining part of the statement of the petitioner so as to conclude the evidence before the date stipulated by this Court. The parties shall be informed accordingly.

Civil Revision No.6187 of 2006.

A copy of this order be remitted to the learned trial Court forthwith for immediate compliance.

Dasti copy of the order be given to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.

November 28,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.