High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/1965/2021disposed of

Naresh Kumar@Mahesh Kumar And ORS v. Sadhu Singh And ORS

2021-09-17Mr. Justice Harminder Singh Madaan2 pages

C.R. No. 1965 of 2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1965 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.9.2021 ...

Naresh Kumar @ Mahesh Kumar and others ................Petitioners vs.

Sadhu Singh and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. Kashish Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

...

H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral) Case taken up through video conferencing.

The revisionists are feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.9.2021, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, wherein para No. 8, she by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court has observed that the High Court has given trial Court discretion to change onus of issues No. 11 and 12 and upon perusal of pleadings of parties, she was of the view that onus had been properly placed and did not require any change. The Judicial Officer does not seem to have properly read and interpreted the order passed by this Court. While disposing of CR No. 1620 of 2021, vide order dated 18.8.2021, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-11, this Court had observed as BANITA CHUGH 2021.09.17 16:11 I agree to specified portions of this document

C.R. No. 1965 of 2021 -2follows :- "With regard to issues No. 11 and 12, the objection of the revisionists is with regard to onus of proof being placed upon defendants/counter claimants instead of plaintiffs, who had raised such objection. Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 9 states that he has no objection if onus of proving these issues is placed upon the plaintiffs. The trial Court may act accordingly."

It appears that the Judicial Officer has either not read the order or could not understand or interpret it in a proper manner. It has been clearly mentioned that counsel for respondents No. 1 to 9 had stated that he has no objection if onus of proving those issues is placed upon the plaintiffs and the trial Court was asked to act accordingly. But even then, the Judicial Officer has not complied with such direction. She is directed to properly read that portion of the order and then act accordingly.

With such observations, the present civil revision petition stands disposed of.

( H.S. Madaan ) 17.9.2021 Judge chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No BANITA CHUGH 2021.09.17 16:11 I agree to specified portions of this document