Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gursharan Singh vs Veer Kaur Through Lrs. Kanwaljit ... on 27 July, 2022
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-8002-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.07.2022
Gursharan Singh ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Veer Kaur (Deceased through LRs) And Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate and
Ms. Samridhi Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel
for respondent No.1(i).
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed impugning the order dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure P-3)
and the order dated 03.11.2015 (Annexure P-6) dismissing the application
for recalling of the order dated 12.10.2015.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.2-petitioner would
contend that the Court has wrongly noted that the costs were not paid and
further that PW1-Kanwaljit Singh stands partly cross-examined and hence
further cross-examination of the PW1 by the defendant No.2-petitioner has
wrongly been disallowed.
Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, Legal Aid Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.1(i) has contended that the conduct of the
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.07.28 11:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-8002-2015 (O&M) -2-
defendant No.2-petitioner needs to be taken into account in the present case.
The civil suit was filed in the year 2004 by Veer Kaur, mother of the
defendant No.2-petitioner, for separate possession by way of partition by
metes and bounds of the properties described in the head-note of the plaint.
The petitioner herein was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit. The
plaintiff in the said suit, Veer Kaur, died during the pendency of the suit
(date of death is not forthcoming). After the death of Veer Kaur (plaintiff),
defendant No.2-petitioner filed an application for being transposed as a
plaintiff being one of the legal representative of Veer Kaur in the suit. The
application was allowed. Thereafter, after being transposed as a plaintiff, the
petitioner herein filed an application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty
to file afresh which application was dismissed on 09.07.2015. Yet again,
another application was filed by the petitioner herein for being re-transposed
from the plaintiff to defendant No.2 which application was allowed on
05.08.2015. Thereafter, the defendant No.2-petitioner filed his written
statement on 13.08.2015. The matter was subsequently adjourned on
numerous dates for filing of written statement of defendant No.7 and on
28.09.2015 costs of Rs.700/- were imposed on the defendant No.2-petitioner
for not conducting the cross-examination of PW1. On 12.10.2015 the
defendant No.2-petitioner partially cross-examined PW1 and in the post
lunch session moved an application for issuance of directions to the other
defendants to conduct the cross-examination of PW-1 as they had allegedly
colluded with each other. The said application was dismissed on 12.10.2015
and the cross-examination of PW1, Kanwaljit Singh, has been treated as nil
on behalf of defendant Nos.1(i), (a) to (d) and defendant No.2-petitioner.
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.07.28 11:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-8002-2015 (O&M) -3-
The contention of Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.1(i) is that the conduct of the defendant No.2-
petitioner needs to be seen in the present case as he has been delaying the
matter on one pretext or the other.
Heard.
A perusal of the order dated 12.10.2015 reveals that the matter
was listed in the 10 years' old category cases. The defendant No.2-petitioner
had earlier put in appearance as defendant No.2 and after the death of his
mother, Veer Kaur (plaintiff), had sought transposition as a plaintiff which
was allowed. Subsequently, an application was filed by the defendant No.2-
petitioner for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh which
application was dismissed on 09.07.2015. Having failed in his endeavour to
withdraw the suit, he yet again moved an application for being re-transposed
as defendant No.2 which was allowed on 05.08.2015. The written statement
was filed by defendant No.2-petitioner on 13.08.2015. The matter was
subsequently adjourned on various dates for filing of the written statement of
defendant No.7. On 28.09.2015 costs were also imposed on the defendant
No.2-petitioner for not cross-examining PW1. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that the costs were deposited as per the receipt
attached though the same was not recorded in the order. On 12.10.2015 the
cross-examination of PW1 was partially conducted in the pre-lunch session
and in the post-lunch session, strangely, an application was moved by the
defendant No.2-petitioner that remaining defendants be directed to cross-
examine PW1, Kanwaljit Singh, since they were colluding. A perusal of the
application (Annexure P-2) reveals that there are no reasons forthcoming as
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.07.28 11:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-8002-2015 (O&M) -4-
to why this application could not be moved at an earlier point of time. It is
only after having conducted the cross-examination of PW1 partially that it
appears to have dawned upon the defendant No.2-petitioner that the
defendants were colluding and hence they should cross-examine PW1 first.
The said application was dismissed vide a separate order dated 12.10.2015
and the Court opined that there was no justification for granting any more
opportunity to defendant Nos.1(i), (a) to (d) and defendant No.2-petitioner
for cross-examination of the witnesses. Hence, vide the impugned order
dated 12.10.2015 the cross-examination of PW1, Kanwaljit Singh, was
treated as nil on behalf of defendant Nos.1(i), (a) to (d) and defendant No.2-
petitioner. Thereafter, an application for recall of the order dated 12.10.2015
was filed on the ground that the counsel had never refused to conduct further
cross-examination of PW1. Vide order dated 03.11.2015 the Court yet again
noticed that the matter was being unnecessarily delayed by the defendant
No.2-petitioner and defendant No.1(i) and (a) to (d) despite the fact that the
case was listed in the 10 years' old category cases and as per the directions
of this Court the same was required to be disposed off expeditiously. It was
further noticed that despite lapsing of 10 years' period, the cross-
examination of PW1, Kanwaljit Singh, was pending. The application for
recall was accordingly dismissed.
Though the endeavour on the part of the defendant No.2-
petitioner seems to be to delay the matter on one pretext or the other,
however, in order to do complete justice between the parties, this Court
deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the defendant No.2-
petitioner to conclude the cross-examination of PW1, Kanwaljit Singh, on
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.07.28 11:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR-8002-2015 (O&M) -5-
the next date of hearing i.e. 29.07.2022, subject to the payment of
Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent No.1(i), Kanwaljit
Singh.
It is made clear that in case the costs are not paid and the cross-
examination of PW1, Kanwaljit Singh, is not conducted on the next date of
hearing i.e. 29.07.2022, the present petition shall be deemed to have been
dismissed.
The Trial Court is requested not to give any unnecessary
adjournments and to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
27.07.2022 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : YES/NO
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.07.28 11:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
