Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bhajan Singh Sethi. v. Harjit Kaur & Ors. - CR-6237-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2635 (26 April 2006)

Civil Revision No.6237 of 2005.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision:31.3.2006.

Bhajan Singh Sethi.



Harjit Kaur and others.



Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N. Aggarwal.


Present: Mr.R.N.Moudgil Advocate for the petitioner.


S. N. Aggarwal, J.

Submits that the petitioner is the defendant in the trial Court.

The plaintiff appeared as PW-1 while she produced Hardip Singh as PW-2.

On 26.3.2003, these witnesses could not be cross-examined and ultimately on 16.4.2004 their cross-examination was shown as nil, opportunity given. The petitioner filed an application for review of that order. The said application was dismissed on 20.10.2005.

Further submits that if one opportunity is given to the petitioner on payment of costs, he will cross-examine both the witnesses. He further submits that the case is fixed for 4.4.2006 in the trial Court.

If notice is granted to opposite side, it will delay the disposal of the suit as also the disposal of the present revision petition while the opposite side can be compensated by payment of costs.

It is in the interest of justice that the parties should be given Civil Revision No.6237 of 2005.

proper opportunities to project their case and proper opportunity be also given to them to lead their evidence. An opportunity should also be given to show that the evidence led by a particular party is not believable.

In the circumstances, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. The costs shall be paid by the petitioner in the learned trial Court on 4.4.2006 itself for onward payment to the plaintiff. On that date, the learned trial Court will direct the plaintiff/respondent to produce herself and her witness Hardip Singh in the witness-box and the petitioner will be entitled to cross-examine both these witnesses. However, if the witnesses do not appear because of their own reasons, then the petitioner will be entitled to another opportunity but the petitioner would not have the right to defer cross-examination and will complete cross-examination of both the witnesses whenever they are produced in the witness-box.

This Civil Revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

Dasti on payment of usual charges.

March 31,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi 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 |

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