Janak Raj vs Kuldeep Raj And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 186 j&K

                                                                      S. No. 220
             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                            AT JAMMU

                                                           OW104 No. 58/2015
                                                           IA No. 65/2015

Janak Raj                                               ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                Through :- Mr. Sunil Dutt Sharma, Advocate
               v/s <




Kuldeep Raj and ors.
't
                                                     .....Respondent (s)

                  Through :- Mr. Abhishek Wazir, Advocate
Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                                        ORDER

24.02.2021

The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 02.03.2015 by virtue of

which right of the petitioner to lead evidence stands closed by the court of learned

Principal District Judge, Jammu (herein referred to be as trial court). It is submitted

by the petitioner that the parties were in the process of settlement and due to that

reason, some delay has occured in conclusion of the evidence and on couple of

occasions when witnesses were present, they could not be examined due to the same

reason.

Be that it may, effect remains that no substantial evidence has been led

by the petitioner before the trial court.

Mr. Abhishek Wazir, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the petitioner has deliberately delayed the trial of the case.

Mr. Sunil Dutt Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court, in case, titled Kewal Krishan vs.

Harnek Singh (Dead) by LRs. reported in 2001 9 SCC 117.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The suit has been pending before the trial court since 2001 and fourteen

years have elapsed but despite that, evidence has not been concluded by the

petitioners. Nonetheless, the suit between the parties is a partition suit, in which there

is hardly any adversarial litigation.

Taking into consideration that the suit pending between the parties

before the trial court is with regard to the partition of the joint family properties and

in case, the petitioner is not allowed to conclude evidence, still the dispute between

the parties will continue till for all time to come. So in order to cut short the

controversy and to prevent multiplicity of litigation, this Court deems it proper that if

the petitioner is allowed to conclude his evidence within a fixed period, however,

subject to payment of costs.

In view of the above, the petitioner is granted three months time to

conclude his evidence. No further opportunity, in whatsoever circumstances, shall be

granted to the petitioner. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to seek

assistance of the trial court for getting any official witness summoned and to that

effect shall take the Dasti summons from the trial court for the purpose of effecting

their service. This petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5000/-, to be paid to

contesting respondents.

Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 24.02.2021 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

NEHA KUMARI 2021.02.24 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document