High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/11763/2018allowed

Shri Krishan Educational Trust v. Ram Pal Sharma

2019-12-05Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh2 pages

CR-11763-2018 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.11763 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.12.2019 Shri Krishan Educational Trust

...Petitioner

Versus

Ram Pal Sharma through his LRs ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Satpal Bhasin, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

***** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J .(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra vide which evidence of the defendant-petitioner was closed by order of the Court on the premise that the said opportunity was 24th opportunity for evidence of the defendantpetitioner. The petitioner is at fault for not concluding its evidence despite availing 24 opportunities.

At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 21.12.2018, following order was passed:- GEETA RANI 2019.12.07 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-11763-2018 (O&M) -2- "Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon pendency of CR No.11655 of 2018 which is fixed for 01.02.2019.

Notice of motion for 01.02.2019.

To be heard along with CR No.11655 of 2018.

Interim order in the same terms as passed in Civil Revision No.11655 of 2018."

Today, learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have no objection in case one effective opportunity is granted to the defendant-petitioner to conclude its evidence, however, subject to payment of some cost(s). In view of no objection given by learned counsel for the respondents, I deem it appropriate to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude its evidence on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court after giving notice to the parties. The aforesaid facts would give rise to a consideration in favour of the petitioner, however, subject to payment of cost(s) of `10,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff. The payment of cost(s) shall be the condition precedent for granting indulgence by the Trial Court in the aforesaid context.

In view of the above, the present revision petition, is allowed.

05.12.2019 ( Raj Mohan Singh ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GEETA RANI 2019.12.07 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document