High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Life Insurance Coporation of India v. Krishan Chand Nanda - RSA-27-2004  RD-P&H 2226 (3 April 2006)
DATE OF DECISION: April 3, 2006
Life Insurance Coporation of India
Krishan Chand Nanda
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent ORDER
Shri B.R.Mahajan, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that initially the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India had summoned the Superintendent from Mahavir Hospital and Research Centre, Hyderabad to appear as a witness. In spite of service, the said Superintendent did not appear. Thereafter the evidence of the Corporation was closed by the trial Court. The order of the trial Court was challenged by the Corporation by filing a Civil Revision No.4597 of 2002 before this Court. The passing of the final order was stayed by this Court vide order dated September 20,2002.
In spite of the stay order, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on September 30,2002. In these circumstances, the revision petition filed by the Corporation had been rendered infructuous and, therefore, a liberty was granted to the Corporation to challenge the order of closure of the evidence before the Appellate Court. The argument was also raised on behalf of the Corporation before the learned First Appellate Court as well to the effect that order of closure of evidence passed by the trial Court is illegal but the learned First Appellate Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the revision against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by this Court, therefore, the validity of the order could not be examined again. According to the learned counsel, the revision petition filed by the appellant Corporation had been rendered infructuous and, therefore, the same was dismissed but with a liberty to the Corporation to challenge the order of closure of evidence in the proceedings before the Appellate Court and, therefore, the observations made by the Appellate Court are totally unsustainable.
Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, Shri Sham Lal Bhalla, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has very fairly stated that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Appellate Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.
In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned First Appellate Court shall now re-decide the matter and shall remain uninfluenced by any observations made in the judgment dated October 20,2003.
The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on May 2, 2006.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge is directed to decide the main appeal within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.
April 03, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.