Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmal Singh Since Deceased Through Lr vs Vikrampal Singh And Others on 24 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056186
CR-6301-2023 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:056186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1.CR-6301-2023 (O&M)
Jagmal Singh since deceased through his LR
....Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Pal Singh and others
..Respondents
2.CR-7316-2023 (O&M)
Jagmal Singh since deceased through his LR
....Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Pal Singh and others
..Respondents
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Siddarth, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate for respondent no.2
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. By this order, two revision petitions i.e CR-6301-2023 and
CR-7316-2023 shall stand disposed of by a common order.
2. In CR-6301-2023, the petitioner herein is the legal
representative of defendant no.1 in a plaintiff's suit for possession by
way of the specific performance of the agreement to sell. When the case
was fixed for evidence of legal representative of defendant no.1, he gave
his power of attorney to Sh.Padam Singh to appear on their behalf. He
filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and was partially cross-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056186
CR-6301-2023 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:056186
examined, however, thereafter, he did not appear. Thus, one of the legal
representatives of defendant no.1, Sh.Umed Singh filed his own affidavit
on behalf of defendant no.1. The same was accepted, however, the court
has ordered its deletion by the impugned order. The trial court has held
that once Padam Singh has been partially examined, Sh.Umed Singh s/o
Sh.Jagmal Singh cannot be permitted to be examined. In the opinion of
this Court, the opinion of the trial court is not supported by any
provision of law. The reliance placed by the trial court on the judgment
in Pinki Lamba vs. M/s Stanley Industires and othes' CR 262-2019
decided on 16.01.2019 is misplaced because of the fact that the aforesaid
revision petition was dismissed in the peculiar facts of that case.
Moreover, in that case, the proprietor of the partnership firm filed an
affidavit and there was no assertion that the propreitor was not available
or willing to come for cross-examination. In this case, Sh.Padam Singh
is not coming forward to complete his deposition. In these
circumstances, son of defendant no.1, has appeared in evidence. The
evidence of Sh.Padam Singh cannot be read in evidence because it is not
complete. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.
3. During the pendency of the revision petition, the trial court
has also closed the opportunity to the legal representatives to lead their
further evidence. Hence, CR-7316-2023 has been filed.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial
court is directed to provide two effective opportunities to the petitioners
to lead their evidence.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056186
CR-6301-2023 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:056186
5. With these observations, both the revision petitions stand
disposed of.
6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
24.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
