Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs Vivek Singhal Alias Vivek Aggarwal on 16 September, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CMPMO No.583 of 2022
Decided on: 16th September, 2024
.
_________________________________________________________________
Pramod Singh Jaswal ....Petitioner
Versus
Vivek Singhal alias Vivek Aggarwal ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
lWhether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. R.P.Singh Advocate.
For the respondent: Proceeded against ex-parte.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
considered the case record.
2. Petitioner was the plaintiff before the learned Trial
Court. Civil suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff reached
the stage of recording of evidence. On 12.10.2022, the matter
was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant.
3. A perusal of order dated 12.10.2022 (impugned
l
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
herein) reflects that affidavit of defendant was filed on
12.10.2022 itself. A copy of the affidavit was supplied to the
.
learned vice counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, who prayed
for adjourning the case for cross-examination of the
defendant on the ground that:- his senior counsel is an
outside Advocate; He was not present in the Court, therefore,
matter be adjourned to next hearing.
4.
at the costs
r of to
Learned Trial Court allowed the prayer, however,
Rs.3000/- with the observation that
adjournment had been sought in the case which is more than
five years old. Feeling aggrieved against the imposition of
costs upon him, the plaintiff has instituted the instant
petition.
5. In Sarita Devi Vs. Rishi Dhiman1, it was held
that "when a witness, as a substitute of recording
examination-in-chief in the Court, tenders his or her evidence
by way of affidavit, then prudently, the other party would
require some reasonable time to go through the same before
it can cross-examine the said witness. This situation can be
addressed by either providing the copies of the affidavit in
CMPMO No.60 of 2018, decided on 05.07.2018
advance to the other party i.e. at least a week before the date
of evidence in the Court and if such affidavits are tendered on
.
the date of evidence itself, then, by deferring the matter for
cross-examination by granting reasonable and sufficient time
in this regard to the other party."
In the instant case, affidavit of the witness
(defendant) was filed on 12.10.2022. Hence, petitioner-
plaintiff was entitled for an adjournment in order to prepare
for the purpose of cross-examination of the witness. There
was no question of imposing costs upon the petitioner-
plaintiff in lieu of adjournment sought for by him.
For the aforesaid reason, impugned order dated
12.10.2022, to the extent of imposing costs upon the
petitioner-plaintiff is set aside. The petitioner-plaintiff
through his learned counsel is directed to remain present
before the learned Trial Court on 03.10.2024. Learned Trial
Court shall, thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance
with law.
The present petition stands disposed of in the
above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous
.
application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
September 16, 2024
R.Atal
r to
