Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AVTAR SINGH versus MANJIT SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Avtar Singh v. Manjit Singh - CR-4542-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6240 (31 August 2006)

*****

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision : 31.8.2006.

Avtar Singh .. Petitioner.

vs

Manjit Singh ... Respondent.

Coram Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Mr.G.S.Verma,Advocate,for the petitioner.

Kiran Anand Lall, J.

A perusal of Annexure P2 shows that the case entered the stage of petitioner's evidence on 22.2.1999, but the petitioner could not complete his evidence till 25.4.2006, on which date the Rent Controller closed his evidence by order.

The petitioner came up, in revision, against the order dated 25.4.2006. While granting one more opportunity to him for producing his evidence at his own responsibility, this court disposed of the revision, on 6.7.2006, by giving the following direction:- "Accordingly, this petition is accepted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.8000/-. The petitioner will tender the costs in the learned Trial Court on 19.7.2006 for onward payment to the respondent. On the date learned Trial Court shall grant one opportunity of about two weeks to the petitioner for producing the witnesses at his own responsibility and closing the evidence. If the *****

petitioner fails to make the payment of costs or to produce and close the evidence at his own responsibility as stipulated above, then he will not be entitled to any other adjournment."

On the date fixed by the Rent Controller viz. 1.8.2006, the petitioner examined one witness but did not close evidence, inspite of the above referred to clear direction, given by this court. The Rent Controller, therefore, had no option but to close his evidence, and he did so, by observing, inter-alia, that, "in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble High Court, the evidence of petitioner is closed."

By passing the impugned order, the Rent Controller had only complied with the direction of this court contained in order dated 6.7.2006 (supra) and had not done anything, of its own.

There is, thus, absolutely no flaw in the impugned order. The petition shall, therefore, stand dismissed, in limine.

31.8.2006. (Kiran Anand Lall)

vs. Judge.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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