Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1510 (PNJ)

Arun Kumar v. Mandir Shiv Shakti Committee

2014-11-10

G.S.SANDHAWALIA

body2014
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. 1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 15.01.2014, whereby the evidence of the counter-claimant has been closed by order. Challenge has also been laid to the order dated 04.02.2014, whereby the review application, filed on account of the counter-claimant, Arun Kumar Arora, who was a cancer patient and had been examined-in-chief on 19.12.2013 but could not come for cross-examination, had been dismissed. Vide the impugned order dated 15.01.2014, the Trial Court noticed that the case was posted for evidence for 09.04.2013 and 19 opportunities had been granted to lead evidence to the counter-claimant and the case pertain to the year 2008. Accordingly, the evidence was closed. The application for review was dismissed on account of the fact that no justifiable reason had been given for the inability to conclude the evidence and cost of ` 1000/- had been imposed. 2. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the main suit, filed by the respondents, has also been dismissed and Arun Kumar Arora, who had to be cross-examined, expired during the pendency of the present revision petition. 3. In view of this fact, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition, as such, has become infructuous since notice of motion was issued on the ground that the statement of petitioner No. 1 could not be read into evidence if he had not been cross-examined. On account of his untimely demise, the revision petition, now, cannot be allowed to that extent. 4. The submission now made that the legal representatives are entitled to lead evidence, is justified since admittedly, the suit has been going on since the year 2008. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that by virtue of the order dated 04.02.2014, the review application should have been allowed by the Trial Court as admittedly, it was brought on record that petitioner No. 1 was suffering from cancer and was being treated at PGI, Chandigarh and could not appear when his evidence was closed on 15.01.2014. 5. None has put in appearance to defend the present revision petition despite service, on behalf of the respondent. 5. None has put in appearance to defend the present revision petition despite service, on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, petitioners No. 2 & 3 are allowed two opportunities to adduce evidence, on payment of ` 5000/- as costs, to be paid to the respondent, as earlier no effort had been made inspite of the Court giving indulgence and only affidavit of Arun Kumar Arora had been filed. Revision petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above.