Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. Kuldip Singh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the suit filed under Section 92 CPC read with Section 6 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920, was dismissed. It is a case wherein the appellants did not lead any evidence in support of their case inspite of grant of numerous opportunities. They were granted opportunity to adduce evidence subject to payment of ` 2,000/- as costs. They did not even pay the costs imposed by the court and therefore, the court was left with no other option but to close the evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants by order dated
Operative part
7.12.2001. They did not challenge the order of closing their evidence. As there was no evidence available with the court to deal with the issue raised by the plaintiffs/appellants, it had rightly dismissed the suit. In so far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the matter be remanded back to the court below by granting an opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead evidence and decide the matter afresh is concerned, I find no merit in the submissions made. Reason being that the suit was filed in the year 1995 and the proceedings challenged therein were of 1992, which cannot be permitted to be reopened after a period of 18 years. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
7.9.2010 vs. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 92; Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 — s. 6.
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.