Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mrs. Savitri & Anr v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply - RSA-1772-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1391 (3 March 2006)

R.S.A. No. 1772 of 2005 (O&M) [1]


R.S.A. No. 1772 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 10, 2006

Mrs. Savitri and another



The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., and others


Present:- Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Anshul Rishi, Advocate

for the respondents.



The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the enquiry report given by defendant No.3 and the order dated August 29, 1995 passed by defendant NO.2 and order dated January 19, 1998 passed by defendant No.4 are null and void, inoperative and illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. A mandatory injunction was further sought against the defendants for directing them to release an amount of Rs.2,22,048.01 paise along with interest.

R.S.A. No. 1772 of 2005 (O&M) [2]

The facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiffs are the widow and son of C.L.Gupta, who had joined the defendants in the year 1969 and was to retire on November 30, 1998, on attaining the age of superannuation.

However, C.L. Gupta, died on September 2, 1995. The present plaintiffs submitted a representation for the grant due amount as well as the pension by submitting an L.R. certificate to the defendants' office. However, an order dated January 19, 1996 was passed affecting the recovery of the amount of Rs.17,045/- on account of House Building Advance. On the basis of the detailed pleadings made in the suit, the plaintiffs filed the suit in question on January 18, 1999.

When the matter was pending before the trial court for the evidence of the plaintiffs, a large number of opportunities were granted to them for leading evidence. However, a witness of the plaintiffs was being examined. Even before the said examination-in-chief was completed, the said witness absented himself on the subsequent dates. In these circumstances, an order dated October 10, 2002 was passed by the trial Judge closing the evidence of the plaintiffs by Court order.

Since there was no evidence of the plaintiffs available on the record, therefore, the defendants also made a statement that they did not want to lead any evidence. In these circumstances, for want of evidence, the trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. An appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court.

The plaintiffs have now chosen to file the present Regular Second Appeal.

Mr. Anuj Raura, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- appellants has contended that the plaintiffs being the widow and the son of C.L.Gupta, were handicapped in pursuing the case. Although a large number of opportunities were granted by the trial Court, but because of the unavoidable R.S.A. No. 1772 of 2005 (O&M) [3]

circumstances, the evidence of the plaintiffs could not be concluded. In these circumstances, the learned counsel requests that only one opportunity be granted to the plaintiffs to lead their entire evidence.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the plaintiffs had nothing to gain by delaying the proceedings in the suit and also the fact that they are widow and son, respectively, of C.L. Gupta, with regard to whose retiral benefits the suit in question was filed, it would be in the interest of justice if some further opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs to lead their entire evidence. By grant of any further opportunity to the plaintiffs, the defendants would not be prejudiced in any manner. In any case, the plaintiffs have ultimately to stand on their own legs.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the present appeal is allowed. The judgments and decree of the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh decision.

The learned trial Court shall grant two opportunities to the plaintiffs to lead their entire evidence. The plaintiffs shall lead their entire evidence at their own responsibility and without the assistance of the Court. On conclusion of the evidence by the plaintiffs, the defendants would be granted three opportunities to lead their entire evidence. The defendants will also lead their entire evidence at their own responsibility and without the assistance of the Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs would be granted one opportunity to lead their evidence in rebuttal, if any. It is made clear that if the plaintiffs fail to conclude their entire evidence as stated above, then no further opportunity shall be granted to them under any circumstances. The present appeal is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms.

R.S.A. No. 1772 of 2005 (O&M) [4]

The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on April 17, 2006. On the aforesaid date, the trial court shall fix a date on which the plaintiffs shall bring their evidence.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

March 10, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


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


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 |

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