Harchand Singh v. M/S Sushil Kumar And Brother And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 116 Case No. : C. R. No. 2074 of 2019 Date of Decision : March 28, 2019 Harchand Singh ....

Petitioner vs.

M/s Sushil Kumar and Brother and another ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. A. S. Syan, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

(Oral) :

The present petition is directed against the orders dated 01.10.2018 and 15.01.2019, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala (for short - the Trial Court) through which cross-examination of PW-3 - Dr. Inderjeet Singh and PW-4 - Rajinderpal respectively has been ordered to be treated as `Nil'.

The facts, in brief, which would be required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition, are that the respondents filed a suit seeking therein recovery of Rs.7,34,400/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. Permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, from transferring, alienating, selling or creating any

charge over the land, which was detailed and described in the head note of the plaint, was also sought.

On being put to notice, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written statement. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed the issues. In support of their case, the respondents produced four witnesses including PW-3 - Dr. Inderjeet Singh and PW-4 - Rajinderpal. Through the orders under challenge, the cross-examination of the afore-named witnesses has been ordered to be treated as 'Nil'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. A perusal of the interim orders passed by the Trial Court reveals that PW-3 - Dr. Inderjeet Singh was available for crossexamination on two occasions but the petitioner failed to cross-examine him. Same was the case with regard to PW-4 - Rajinderpal.

Since the evidence of the defendant is yet to be led, in line with the principles of natural justice as also not to preclude the petitioner from raising his defence at the threshold of the litigation filed against him, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one opportunity to cross-examine both witnesses i.e. PW-3 - Dr. Inderjeet Singh and PW-4 - Rajinderpal, on a date to be fixed for the same by the Trial Court.

The present petition is allowed in the above terms.

If the respondents are aggrieved by passing of the present order, they are at liberty to approach this Court by filing of an appropriate application.

( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE March 28, 2019 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.