Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19261 = 2024(2) L.A.R. 422
Decided on: 28.05.2024
Present:
Mr. Raj Kumar Chandana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for the respondent.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 10, Order 16 Rule 12 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence -- One opportunity to lead evidence -- Due to pre-occupation of the counsel the evidence could not be recorded -- In order to do complete justice between the parties, plaintiff-petitioner granted one effective opportunity to lead its evidence, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the defendant-respondent.
(Para 5)
***
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) –
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.04.2024 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that due to pre-occupation of the counsel the witness could not be examined on 19.04.2024. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would further contend that only Anil Kumar needs to be examined and given one effective opportunity the plaintiff-petitioner would conclude its evidence at its own risk and responsibility.
3. Per contra learned counsel for the defendant-respondent would contend that despite availing 08 effective opportunities, including 03 last opportunities and despite costs being imposed, the evidence was not led by the plaintiff-petitioner and hence the order dated 19.04.2024 has rightly been passed.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case the plaintiff-petitioner no doubt did not lead its evidence despite numerous opportunities, however, it has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that due to pre-occupation of the counsel the evidence could not be recorded. It has further been contended that given one effective opportunity the evidence would be led by the plaintiff-petitioner at its own risk and responsibility. In order to do complete justice between the parties, the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 is set aside. The plaintiff-petitioner is granted one effective opportunity to lead its evidence, subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the defendant-respondent, which shall be a condition precedent.
6. The present revision petition stands disposed off in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
Order accordingly.
********