Mohinder Singh Arora Vs Harjit Kaur

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 27 Mar 2001 C.R. No. 5486 of 2000 (2001) 4 RCR(Civil) 390
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

C.R. No. 5486 of 2000

Hon'ble Bench

Bakhshish Kaur, J

Advocates

B.S. Jaswal, for the Appellant; Gurminder Kaur, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 16 Rule 10, Order 17 Rule 3

Judgement Text

Translate:

Bakshish Karu, J.@mdashThere is delay of 17 days in filling this civil revision. The cause shown in the application supported by affidavit appears

to be just and suf- ficient for condoning the delay. Hence, 17 days of delay is hereby condoned. C.M. is disposed of accordingly.

2. The petitioner''s evidence was closed by order by the trial Court mainly on the ground that he had taken nearly 2-1/2 years to produce his

evidence but failed to do so.

3. Adverting to the grounds of revision, the report of the Process Server, reproduced in para 8 of the grounds of revision, indicates that summoned

witness Sain Dass Shanna was served for the date fixed. However, the impugned order is totally silent on this point. Whether this witness was

present on that date or not ? The trial Court should have been vigilant enough to look into this aspect of the case. Once a witness is ordered fo be

summoned, it becomes the duty of the Court lo see that the process issued by it is .duly served and the witness appears in Court. Since, he was

served for the date fixed, then it was imperative upon the Court lo procure the presence of recalcitrant witness under Order 16 Rule 10 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. By not following the procedure laid down therein, the trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiff.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Since the plaintiff-petitioner has already taken

sufficiently long time in producing the witness, therefore, he is required to compensate the other side. He is permitted to examine the witness Sain

Dass Shanna, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-.

5. The trial Court is directed to afford only one opportunity to the petitioner to produce the witness and make his statement on the date to be fixed

by it. In case he fails to produce his witness on the date fixed, the trial Court would be at liberty to pass necessary orders forthwith.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear be-fore the trial Court on 8.5.2001.

6. Revision allowed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Oct
24
2025

Story

Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Read More
Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Oct
24
2025

Story

Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Read More