High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Kantula v. Noor Mohd. & another - CR-6234-2006  RD-P&H 657 (19 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO. 6234 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION. January 22, 2007.
Noor Mohd. & another ......Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT Mr. Lokesh Sinhal ,Advocate
for the petitioner.
VINEY MITTAL, J ( Oral )
Plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court.
He is aggrieved against the order dated October 16, 2006 passed by the trial Judge whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been ordered to be closed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances although, I find that plaintiff has been quite negligent in not producing his evidence on various dates fixed by the trial Court for the aforesaid purpose but keeping in view the interest of justice, I find that one last opportunity needs to be granted to the plaintiff for production of the evidence.
Consequently present petition is allowed.
Order dated October 16, 2006 passed by the trial judge is set aside subject to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The cost would be a condition precedent for allowing the plaintiff to lead his evidence.
The trial Court shall fix one date, On the aforesaid date, the plaintiff shall pay cost and shall conclude his entire evidence on his own CR NO. 6234 of 2006 2
responsibility and without the assistance of the Court. If the plaintiff fails to pay the cost or the evidence is not concluded by him, no further opportunity shall be granted to in and in such situation, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
A copy of the order be given dasti on usual charges.
January 22, 2007 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.