Archana Talwar vs Bhai Manpreet Singh And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 16167 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.563 of 2023 Date of Decision: 12.10.2023 _______________________________________________________

.

    Archana Talwar                                    .......Petitioner





                                                     Versus
    Bhai Manpreet Singh and another                ... Respondents

_______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Nemo.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 30.6.2023

passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) Kasauli, District Solan,

Himachal Pradesh, whereby evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter

referred to as the plaintiff) has been closed, petitioner-plaintiff has

approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, praying therein to quash and set-aside aforesaid

order.

2. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be

passed in the instant proceedings, this Court deems it not necessary to

issue notice to the respondents because it would not only cause

inconvenience to them, rather they would be unnecessarily burdened to

engage counsel to represent them in the instant proceeding, which can be

otherwise disposed of on the basis of material available on record.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner-plaintiff as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,

learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, is that since parties were in

.

process of settling their dispute amicably interse them and matter was

adjourned, enabling parties to place on record compromise, there was no

occasion, if any, for the petitioner-plaintiff to come present for cross-

examination on the date fixed.

4. Having perused impugned order in its entirety, this Court finds

that on 30.6.2023, plaintiff was not present and counsel representing the

defendants apprised the Court that he has no instruction with regard to

amicable settlement, if any, arrived interse parties and as such, court below

proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiff with a direction to the

defendant to produce evidence on 22.08.2023. Though, impugned order

reveals that despite opportunity plaintiff failed to lead evidence and as such,

Court below had no option, but to close the evidence of the plaintiff,

however, it is quite apparent from the material available on record that talks

were going interse plaintiff and defendants for amicable settlement and as

such, there appears to be merit in the submission made on behalf of the

petitioner that on 30.6.2023, petitioner remained under impression that

learned counsel for the defendants shall place on record instructions, if any,

with regard to compromise.

5. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that no

prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties if one last

opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence on the date fixed by

this Court, subject to costs amounting to Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in

Apada Raahat Kosh.

.

6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is

allowed and impugned order dated 30.6.2023 passed by learned Court

below is quashed and set-aside with a direction to the petitioner to remain

present before the Court below on 5.12.2023, enabling it to fix date for

recording evidence. It is made clear that in case plaintiff fails to turn up on

the given date, order dated 30.6.2023 would automatically revive and no

more opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. Till the

time, costs, as quantified hereinabove, is not deposited in Apada Raahat

Kosh, petitioner shall not be permitted to lead evidence in terms of instant

order. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 12,2023

(shankar)