High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sukh Ram v. Jeeto Devi - CR-1839-2006  RD-P&H 2988 (8 May 2006)
Civil Revision No.1839 of 2006
Date of decision: May 11, 2006.
Present: Shri Sameer Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This revision petition is directed against an order dated 8.3.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula whereby the petitioner-defendant's evidence has been closed by order.
Since the order which I propose to pass is not likely to cause any prejudice to the respondent, no notice of motion is being issued.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that several opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner, including the last opportunity subject to payment of costs. The petitioner, however, failed to avail those opportunities and did not lead the entire evidence.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that only one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. It is pointed out that the suit is now fixed on 5.6.2006 and even no effective proceedings are likely to take place on that day as the court has been withdrawn.
After hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the nature of litigation, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i)the petitioner shall be given one opportunity only to produce his remaining evidence. It is made clear that no other opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner and whatever evidence is required to be produced by him, the same shall be produced at his own responsibility;
(ii) the aforesaid opportunity shall be granted to him subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondent.
Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.
May 11, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.