Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chander @ Subhash Bhargav vs Braham Dutt Sharma on 1 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:042776
120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1898-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.04.2024
Subhash Chander @ Subhash Bhargav ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Braham Dutt Sharma ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the
impugned order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) whereby the evidence of
the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed by order.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that
since the plaintiff-petitioner was abroad, hence, the evidence could not be
produced and that only the cross-examination of PW-4 remains and one
attesting witness has to be produced to prove the Will. The learned counsel
for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that given one opportunity the
plaintiff-petitioner would lead his entire evidence at his own risk and
responsibility and that he is also willing to compensate the defendant-
respondent by way of heavy costs.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:042776
CR-1898-2024 (O&M) -2-
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate, who is present in Court, has
put in appearance on behalf of the defendant-respondent and has filed his
memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record and states that he has
instructions to appear in the matter. Learned counsel for the defendant-
respondent states that the plaintiff-petitioner has been delaying the matter
and despite 55 effective opportunities he has failed to conclude his evidence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the present case the suit is for declaration to the effect that
the plaintiff-petitioner is the owner of the property as detailed in the
head-note of the plaint. The issues in the present case were framed on
28.03.2017 and the plaintiff-petitioner has been delaying the matter by not
leading his evidence. No doubt the plaintiff-petitioner has been remiss in not
leading his evidence in entirety, however, keeping in view the fact that only
the cross-examination of PW4 remains and one more witness needs to be
produced to prove the Will, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one
effective opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead his entire evidence at
his own risk and responsibility. However, in view of the fact that despite 55
opportunities the evidence has not been led, the opportunity would be
subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- to be deposited
with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority and Rs.25,000/- to be paid to
the defendant-respondent, which shall be a condition precedent.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:042776
CR-1898-2024 (O&M) -3-
7. Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
01.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
