Vijay Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
revision petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiffs have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, thereby closing plaintiffs' evidence by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. The trial court, vide order dated 21.11.2011, framed additional issue on amended pleadings and ordered that only three opportunities will be granted to conclude the entire evidence of the plaintiffs. The case was C. R. No. 448 of 2012 2 adjourned to 28.11.2011 for evidence of the plaintiffs. However, learned Presiding Officer of the trial court was on leave on 28.11.2011 and the case was, therefore, not taken up on that day and was taken up on 29.11.2011. No witness of plaintiffs was present. On the contrary, the case was taken up at lunch time and after lunch break, the Presiding Officer was to proceed on short casual leave due to illness. The case was thus adjourned to
09.12.2011 for evidence of the plaintiffs and then to 23.12.2011, when evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by impugned order of the trial court. As noticed herein before, vide order dated 21.11.2011, the trial court ordered that three opportunities will be granted to plaintiffs for their evidence. However, trial court granted only two effective opportunities to the plaintiffs-petitioners for their evidence i.e. on 09.12.2011 and
23.12.2011, when the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by court order. The trial court has erroneously counted the date of 29.11.2011 also as one opportunity granted to the plaintiffs for their evidence, but the same cannot be said to be any opportunity, much less effective opportunity granted to the plaintiffs for their evidence. The case was fixed for 28.11.2011, but was not taken up on that day because the Presiding Officer was on leave. The case was taken up on 29.11.2011 at lunch time and the Presiding Officer was to proceed on short casual leave after lunch break. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs got any effective opportunity on
29.11.2011 to lead their evidence. C. R. No. 448 of 2012 3 In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the trial court is illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error because evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by court order without affording them third effective opportunity for their evidence, as stipulated in order dated
Operative part
21.11.2011. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs deserve another opportunity for their evidence. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to them. As a necessary result of the discussion aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-4 passed by the trial court, whereby evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by court order, is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the plaintiffs for their entire remaining evidence at their own responsibility. Plaintiffs may take assistance of the Court to summon their evidence, but not more than one effective opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiffs for any reason. January 19, 2012 monika ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: revision petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Jan 2012. The bench was L N MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.