GURMAIL SINGH versus OM PARKASH KANWAL & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Gurmail Singh v. Om Parkash Kanwal & Anr. - CR-3501-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 9931 (6 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R.No. 3501 of 2005

Date of decision : 31.10.2006

Gurmail Singh

.........Petitioner.

Versus

Om Parkash Kanwal & Anr.

...........Respondents.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. Amit Jain ,Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate

with Mr Ashok Mahajan, Advocate

for the respondents.

****

VINOD K. SHARMA,J.( ORAL )

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.5.2005 vide which the learned Rent Controller, Khanna has been pleased to summon respondent No.2 i.e. Bhim Singh to appear as a witness in the court.

The learned Court below on consideration of the document brought on record has come to the conclusion that cross-examination of respondent No.2 was necessary as clarification was required from him. It was also held that the examination of respondent No. 2 was necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. it is only C.R.No. 3501 of 2005 [2]

the Court who has the discretion to summon a witness. According to the learned counsel the reading of the provisions of Order 16 Rule 14 shows that the power has to be exercised by the Court suo motu and not on the application made by the party. This contention cannot be accepted as it is settled law that where a authority/Court has been given a power to act suo motu, the said power can even be exercised on the application made by the party to the proceeding.

The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it was not open to the Court to call a witness for benefit of a party as it was always open to the Court to draw an adverse inference against a party due to his non-appearance. This contention is against the provisions of Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. as the Court has been authorised to call a witness if it is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case.

The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the reading of the order shows that respondent No.2 has been summoned for the purposes of cross-examination, which cannot be permitted unless evidence is led in chief. This contention also cannot be sustained as respondent No.2 would be required to give his evidence in- chief prior to his cross-examination. The word cross-examination used in the order is to indicate that the documents produced in the Court are required to be got clarified from respondent No.2 herein.

There is no error or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court which may call for interference by this Court.

Dismissed.

October 31,2006 ( VINOD K. SHARMA )

'sp' JUDGE

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

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.