Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 626 (PNJ)

Nidhi Arora v. Prashant Arora

2005-05-20

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. R.A. No. 38-CII of 2005 was filed against the order passed by this Court on 08.04.2005 by which C.R. No. 1975 of 2003 was dismissed as in-fructuous. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if this review application is accepted and C.R. No. 1975 of 2003 is ordered to be restored at its original number. I order accordingly. C.R. No. 1975 of 2003 Arguments of C.R. No. 1975 of 2003 heard. 2. This revision petition was filed against the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 7.4.2003. The petitioners were the defendants in the learned trial Court and their prayer was that the plaintiff (respondent herein) can depose in his case only by appearing in person and not through attorney. That prayer was declined by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 7.4.2003 and it was held that the plaintiff can make the statement through his attorney also. 3. Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors.,. 4. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondent was that the respondent herein (plaintiff in the learned trial Court) has already closed his evidence. The evidence of the petitioner has also been closed by them and the file is now fixed in the learned trial Court for 25.5.2005 for arguments. 5. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of this case and inspite of the impugned order dated 7.4.2003, passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners would still be at liberty to take objections at the time of final arguments about evidenciary value of the statement of the plaintiff made by him through Attorney and by not appearing as his own witness and the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to decide that point in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the previous order passed by this Court on 27.05.2003 by which the order C.R. No. 4231 of 2001 filed by the present petitioners was ordered to be heard alongwith the present revision petition. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the previous order passed by this Court on 27.05.2003 by which the order C.R. No. 4231 of 2001 filed by the present petitioners was ordered to be heard alongwith the present revision petition. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand was that the respondent had filed S.L.P. against order dated 20.11.2001 in C.R. No. 4231 of 2001 and the Hon ble Supreme Court was pleased to stay the proceedings pending in this Court in C.R. No. 4231 of 2001. Therefore, the said petition cannot be decided alongwith the present revision petition. 8. Since, the proceedings of C.R. No. 4231 of 2001 have been stayed by Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, the said petition is being separated from this revision petition and by this order only C.R. No. 1975 of 2003 is being disposed of as above.