High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Mohinder Kaur Chadha v. Satnam Singh & another - RSA-2465-2005  RD-P&H 1264 (28 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.2465 of 2005
Date of Decision : February 27, 2006.
Mohinder Kaur Chadha .... Appellant
Satnam Singh & another .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate
for the appellant.
JUDGMENT (Oral) :
The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below in a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.
During the course of proceedings in the trial court, a large number of opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for production of her evidence.
The plaintiff failed to produce the evidence. Consequently, her evidence was ordered to be closed. Since there was no evidence at all on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants also chose not to lead any evidence. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. An appeal filed by the plaintiff also failed before the learned first appellate court.
Shri Puneet Jindal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- appellant has argued that on the dates, when the plaintiff was required to produce her evidence, the Presiding Officer was not holding the court and therefore, the evidence could not be produced by the plaintiff.
I have gone through the various zimni orders passed by the learned trial court, produced before me during the course of arguments. On perusal of the aforesaid proceedings before the trial court, I find that on R.S.A.No.2465 of 2005 : 2 :
various dates, when the Presiding Officer was holding the court, the plaintiff failed to produce her evidence. It is also apparent that cost was also imposed on one occasion for non-production of evidence.
The plaintiff, while filing an appeal, before the learned first appellate court, merely mentioned the dated fixed by the learned trial court without disclosing that on various dates, the plaintiff herself was at fault.
In these circumstances, her evidence was justifiably closed by the learned trial court.
Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff is a poor widow lady and because of the aforesaid fact, could not produce the aforesaid evidence. The title of the case shows that the plaintiff had filed the suit through her attorney Joginder Singh. In these circumstances, the plaintiff can not be heard to claim that on account of her old age or on account of her being widow, she was not able to produce her evidence.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 27, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.