High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Smt. Kiran Khullar v. Smt.Manjit Kaur - CR-1832-2006  RD-P&H 2201 (31 March 2006)
DATE OF DECISION: March 31, 2006
Smt. Kiran Khullar
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
The defendant is petitioner before this Court.
An order dated July 21, 2005 was passed by the trial Court to the following effect:
"Keeping in view the facts submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the case is adjourned for 3.5.2001 for producing the original Passport of Manjit Kaur plaintiff. If original Passport is not possible then certified copy duly attested by the competent authority of USA may be produced on the date fixed i.e. 5.3.2001." An application was thereafter filed before the trial Court that the said ordered not been complied with and that the plaintiff be directed to comply with the aforesaid order.
It appears from the record that an application was earlier filed by the defendant-petitioner before the trial Court that the attorney of the plaintiff be directed to produce the original passport of the plaintiff or attested copy from the competent authority. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. The defendant- petitioner approached this Court by way of a revision petition.
However, the revision petition filed by the defendants was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court for compliance of the order dated July 21, 2005.
The defendant-petitioner accordingly filed an application for compliance of the order dated July 21, 2005. This application has also been dismissed by the trial Court. It has also been observed that by placing a photocopy of the original passport on the record of the case, the order dated July 21, 2005 has been complied with by the plaintiff.
Shri K.S.Dadwal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the plaintiff had originally exchanged her property with the property of the defendant and after the exchange and after the delivery of possession, the defendant had raised construction of her house on the property. According to the learned counsel, the alleged attorney of the plaintiff is trying to seek the possession of the property which now belongs to the defendant.
I am afraid the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner on merits of the controversy at this stage would not be relevant for adjudication. However, I find that an order dated July 21, 2005 had been passed by the trial Court. In these circumstances, it would always be open to the defendant-petitioner to raise an objection before the trial Court that the aforesaid order had not been complied with by the plaintiff. If the defendant-petitioner is able to convince the trial Court at an appropriate stage that the order dated July 21, 2005 has not been complied with by the plaintiff, then the trial Court would be well within its rights to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff.
With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is disposed.
March 31, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.