Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

EX

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ex-Constable Parveen Kumar v. State of Punjab and other - RSA-3607-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 674 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.3607 of 2003

Date of Decision : January 31, 2006.

Ex-Constable Parveen Kumar .... Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.N.P.Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff has concurrently lost before the two courts below.

He failed to lead any evidence before the learned trial court, in spite of the fact that many opportunities have been provided to him.

Consequently, the learned trial court proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. An appeal filed by him also failed before the learned first appellate court. The first appellate court also held that the plaintiff had been provided a large number of opportunities but he failed to lead any evidence. His appeal was also dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that the court should have decided the case on merits and not dismissed the suit for non-production of witnesses.

I find myself unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that a large number of opportunities had been provided to the plaintiff to produce his evidence but he did not lead any evidence. In these circumstances, when the claim was not supported by any evidence and the defendants were contesting their claim by filing written statement, then the trial court had no other option but to proceed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

R.S.A.No.3607 of 2003 : 2 :

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

January 31, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.