Jasbir Singh v. Surjit Singh And Others









 






 

 
  

!"#
$%$%

&
&



& '
(
 
&$) '(
&
*

++!"

,
- ,./.
&


&

 &



$$$

.0!"

"+.
 #
 1'
 &
 &

 











!""




#$ %





!


& '



 "

!


& (


"!
)"



*'+

,,,,


 
-
'


#$
%



!!

./
!


& '



"/
 )

 0
)"
"
1
 
.%

%
2!"


3


!""


/ !/

 
! 

!0


!/"


"/
4-."
"$
 $
!"/
 )

 0
"
#/)
"$

5"
"$
"

"//$
/!
#/
6"/

7""
8"

%"
"$


9

)"
"
/
1

 
.%

%
2!"





6"
 
!""


"
"
$"



:
2


!
"
"

"/
"
& 

'(

'(
"/

4-."
"$
;
%"
"$
9
).0

 "

!/""
. 

"/
 

.
/ 
.0
 





'+''
2
(

.0
"

)"

!!/""


"/
.0

!""




//"$




:
2
 
.

"8"




3


!""


$

!""


""

"
$"
!



/"




<"/
/"

!8
"%"

"


!/

"/
"

!/"
:''*
/
"/
 
8

"
"

 "
"
=
"


 
"
-0
':

!""


!/""

8



!!/""


2
'


88 "$

)"

/
!

"
"
8 0
)"/


!



"':
8"

"

"$

 
8"
"



/ 
/
 
8!/
"
 "
>
"
"
.8"
.0

/
/

8 


)"
"

.
28"
.0

!""


)
""/
)"
 8

!

/"


5

8
!8
2!

!/""

) !"
"

 "

."/./)
"
 

!

 "$
"
 "
6
!!


"
.8""


/
/
 



2

//0 
+











>
 "$




/
/

:



!""


)
!"
)"



 

/
 




"$

"

)
//

 "

)
/ 
.0

/
"/
 






2
 
3
/


<



//


2


2!/""$

"."/"0

"
/
 !!
"

 
"
!/
"


)
"//$//0

 )
.0
"8""$
"
!!/""


2
+ 

'+''
2
(

"$
"


!%"


"$


!""


.0
! "$
"8
 8
! "$
"


(










3
/


8 


)"

5

8

""/


 
"
"
 /

/
 
)
<"

 
"
!

"
 !!
"

 
 $
"


8

!

"


'?

 

"

"/
 
':*
" 
 


49 
=
!!



"
.8""


/
/
 



 

  

  

  !"#$ 
%"  $ $

& 

' (
 )

  $      )

  $  & '



  

*    

)  &' 

 &(  +,- ) . ./ /  0 .    1
"

 2 / 
. "   /   1 %  $ . 

3

 

&
. "$

)

)"
 
 
!!
!"
 "
"
"


 

1
"


8
  


)"
.0
"

1"$

!



'?

?
3


!""


8

!0

 


 ./
!!

"0@"


!""



!
"
 "
.0
// )"$

 
!""


=
"
$
.0

/
/

"8!$


:
2




'+''
2
(

"./
"
0

/)


.

"
)"
 
/

"$


/
 "


 
/


!


& '


.8"

!""


!/""

"/

"
"
'(

!"
1"$
8 

!!

""
"/
 /
"
 "
=
!!



"
$8
/
/
 
 "



 
"""$

"/
!""


 /
"
 "
=
"
/


 /"
$ 
"
8

$

!!

"0
 

/
"
 "



//$

%" "


!0
"
8

"8"

!""

 ."$


8"

*
=
 

/


!"

$ 
 $

!!
.

1
)"
"
/./
"

:
 "

0

!""


"/

"

/"


)"

<"/
/"

!8
"%"


$"
!


=
"
"!

"
)
8

:''*


)
!




 "


!""



=
"
2!/""
 8
 /



2

//0

/
"/
 
"
 "


)"


"
!
"

 

 "$
"
 "

/
"
."/./
)

! 

!


)"

'


'?
/
'

/
'


!

"


4&   ,$%..

/1 , "15. %   



   

  

              

     

     

  

 

   

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

          

  



 









 

  





 

    

            

         

     



   

 

! " 

 

  



  

           

   

      

          

            

 

     

#         

             

$           

  



  

 

  

  

 !% &   

       

 

  

  

 

     



 

  '

 

 

    

    ' 





          



"( )         *

   

 '

   

   

  

 

 !    ,$%/.

/1 ""!  +

  

 

         

      





 

 ' 

     



  

   

 

     

 

  

 





,    

   

    

 



  (

)   



    

#

 

 

 



  

 



 

 

    ! " -  

      

  

 "   

 ,      

    

    

  

 %     

 

       

 

   



  

   



     !. ''
=
Deepak Chadha vs. Rupa Anand & Anr., 2011(1) PLR 378, it is held that in case, it was proved that the bailable warrants were served on the witnesses and they had not chosen to appear in the case, in that event, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court to have issued nonbailable warrants for their arrest, or should have taken other coercive steps by writing to the Superintendent of Police, concerned or to see, that warrants were executed, but the petitioner could not be made to suffer for the lapse of executing agency, in effecting service. In the aforesaid case, impugned order whereby, the evidence of petitioner was closed was set aside and he was granted two adjournments to conclude his evidence with direction to the trial Court to use coercive method for getting the presence of the summoned witnesses in terms of Order 16, Rule 10 CPC.

12.

This Court in Mahant Jagmohan Singh vs. Mahant Karamjit Singh, 2013(2) PLR 708 also took the similar view that when the diet money and the other expenses have been deposited by the petitioner, the Court is duty bound to procure the presence of the witnesses. It was held that the trial Court committed a material irregularity in not compelling the attendance of summoned witnesses. Section 32 gives a right to the trial Court

to summon a witness and Order 16, Rule 10 and 12 CPC to secure attendance of the witness and accordingly, petition was allowed. 13.

 "
.


/
"/
 
"
."/./
)

$"
 8
)"
.
"
 
1

"


8
/"1
"

 ."/./
) 
8

! !0 
)""$


"


8"""


"

"


)"

!!
 

."$



"
/ $"/

.0
8!/"$

! !


 "

!"
6


+:
 /

."/./
)

A
=
&
#8

=
%
#8

)
"

2!
81"$
!

=
&
#8

:

/
"/
 
"
 
8"


.



!

 !

)"
=
%
#8
 
8
0
 
"

)
$"


!

0

8
)
1
)"
!

"
)"


)



/ 

 "


!""


6

"
8!//0
"/
)"
!

=
%
#8
A

=
$"



"
 
"


")


/
"/
 
8!//0
/
"
"
!! 
)"/
/ "$

 "

"$
$
!%"

"8
6
/
"/
 
)
./"$

1
8

8
"

'?


! 




.
)"
"
!



:
 
 
)"
%""/
"0


</0

.<


'+''
2
(

)"
!!/""


//




:

.
"8"
'+









3

!""


1
 /
"
 "
"
$"


 ./
"8



!""


"
$"



 "



!!

""
 /
"
 "


/
"/
 
//
 !
//

8

! 

!


88 
)"

8


!



'?



!






'(











&/

8"




!"


"
//

!
)"

/
"/
 
"

2!""


""



.0


""$
0
% 8


"
/
!"$
"
'(
'?












=
")

""


.



:
2
 



'+''
2
(


"
'












 "$/0
 
!""



"!



"
.


8
'*











"$
!!/""


"
0
/

"!



 "$/0

 
 










 
$%$%
"8!/
A
!1"$@ 

B@& A
!

./

B@&