High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/8524/2016allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Rajesh Sharma

2016-12-17Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 17.12.2016 ICICI Bank Limited ....Petitioner

Versus

Rajesh Sharma ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present :

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the petitioner.

REKHA MITTAL, J. (Oral) The present petition directs challenge against orders dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure P1) and dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure P4) whereby cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff was treated as 'NIL' and the application for recalling the order dated 08.12.2015 did not find favour with the trial Court while recording observations that it would amount to review of the order dated 08.12.2015. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of more than Rs.1,50,000/- and in order to prove his contentions raised in the plaint, he appeared in the witness-box and tendered into evidence his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. As counsel representing the petitioner - Bank had gone to Yamuna Nagar to attend the proceedings in the CBI Court, request was made on his behalf by a junior counsel for adjournment of the case for cross-examination of PW1 on both the occasions i.e. 03.12.2015 and 08.12.2015. It is further submitted that a serious prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner in case the Bank is

not permitted to cross-examine Rajesh Sharma, the star witness in the case. According to counsel, the respondent/plaintiff can well be compensated with costs for delay, if any, attributable to the petitioner. Counsel has apprised that after closing of evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, the case is now fixed for evidence of the petitioner/defendant for 22.12.2016.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paperbook and the orders impugned.

Be that as it may, though counsel for the petitioner - Bank did not bother to ensure his presence on 08.12.2015 despite an opportunity provided to the Bank for cross-examination of the witness subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- but still in the light of principle of fair opportunity coupled with the serious consequence likely to ensue in case the petitioner is not permitted to cross-examine the material witness i.e. the plaintiff, the petitioner is allowed one opportunity for cross-examination of the witness subject to the following conditions:-

1. The Court below shall recall Rajesh Sharma - the plaintiff for his cross-examination on the date to be fixed by the said Court.

2. The petitioner shall ensure that the witnessis crossexamined on the date of his appearance before the Court for the said purpose.

3. The petitioner shall deposit Rs.10,000/- with the trial Court well in advance before the date fixed and the same shall be released in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as per rules.

Failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the conditions would entail dismissal of the petition.

Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention that the petition has been disposed of without notice to the respondent in order to avoid un-necessary inconvenience and expenses. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application in case he has any grievance to express.

Disposed of.

17.12.2016 (REKHA MITTAL) yakub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No