High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Harpal Singh v. Manglu - CIVIL REVISION No. 309 of 2006  RD-AH 13188 (8 August 2006)
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
By the impugned order the trial court has closed the applicant-revisionist's evidence after the defendant himself was examined as D.W. 1. The court has refused the prayer of the defendant to adjourn the case to some other date simply because on the last three previous dates the adjournment had already been sought by the defendant at the stage of final hearing.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the only witness of defendant left in the case was also to be examined on that date but due to personal difficulty, he could not reach the court and as such, the applicant was handicapped and could not produce him resulting into closure of his evidence by the impugned order. Learned counsel also submits that on the next date fixed in the case he would definitely produce that witness failing which his evidence may be closed thereafter. In case, he is not permitted to produce the only witness, irreparable injury would be caused to his case, which might result into miscarriage of justice.
Looking to the facts and circumstances, this revision petition is hereby disposed of with this direction that the trial court shall give only one opportunity to the defendant to produce his only witness before the court on the date already fixed in the case. It is also provided that if there is failure on any account in producing the witness, no further opportunity would be granted to the defendant in this regard.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.