Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh(Deceased) Through His ... vs Ranjit Singh And Ors on 5 July, 2023
2023:PHHC:086046
C.R.No.2169 of 2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.248
Case No. : C.R.No.2169 of 2019
Date of Decision : July 05, 2023
Amar Singh (deceased) through legal heirs .... Petitioner
vs.
Ranjit Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate
for respondent no.1.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Prayer in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 07.03.2019
(Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was
fixed for 05.01.2019. The learned Presiding Officer was on leave on that
day. So, the case was taken up on 04.01.2019 (Annexure P-1) and was
adjourned to 20.05.2019. The Reader of the Court was directed to inform
the parties about the next date of hearing. The said order was downloaded
from the website of the Court. Later, the said date was got changed from
20.05.2019 to 20.02.2019. The petitioner was having no knowledge about
the same. On 20.02.2019, the case was taken up and was adjourned to
07.03.2019. On that day, no one put in appearance on behalf of the
MONIKA
2023.07.10 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:086046
petitioner but still, presence of his counsel was marked. A copy of the said
order dated 20.02.2019 has been annexed as Annexure P-3.
3. The petitioner came to know about the change of date and
application was filed regarding the same on 07.03.2019. The case was taken
up in the morning and was adjourned to 26.03.2019 (Annexure P-4).
However, in the afternoon, the case was taken up again for cross-
examination of PW-1 and PW-2 on behalf of the petitioner. Without
affording the petitioner any opportunity, cross-examination of these
witnesses was treated to be 'Nil' (Annexures P-5 and P-6).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that keeping
in view the aforesaid facts of the case, one opportunity be granted to the
petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid two witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that the
petitioner was very well aware of the date as 20.02.2019. That is why, the
counsel for the petitioner was present in the Court on that day and it is so
mentioned in the order dated 20.02.2019 itself. The petitioner failed to
cross-examine PW-1 and PW-2. So, learned Trial Court recorded their
cross-examination as 'Nil'.
6. Heard.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on the record copy
of the order dated 04.01.2019 (Annexure P-1), which was downloaded from
the website of the Court, wherein the next date is shown as 20.05.2019. In
the file, the date was shown to be 20.02.2019. On 20.02.2019, the case was
adjourned to 07.03.2019. On that day, the petitioner moved an application
MONIKA
2023.07.10 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:086046
and the case was adjourned to 26.03.2019. Since there was some mistake on
the part of the officials of the Court, so, the petitioner should not suffer. A
party has got every right to get the decision of his case on merits. A party
cannot be non-suited merely on the technicalities.
8. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, this revision
petition is allowed and the order dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-7) is hereby
set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to fix the case for cross-
examination of PW-1 and PW-2 within one month. The said witnesses shall
be produced by the plaintiff at his own responsibility. The petitioner is also
directed to cross-examine the said witnesses on the same very day. In case,
the Trial Court is not able to examine the witnesses on that day, then the
cross-examination be got conducted on the very next working day.
9. The petitioner is burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/-, out of
which Rs.2,000/- shall be deposited with the concerned District Legal
Services Authority and Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the plaintiff-respondent
no.1.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
July 05, 2023 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
MONIKA
2023.07.10 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
