Full Text
Translation output
A-46
% 14.9.2011
Present: Mr.Rahul Bhaga Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No.17117/2011
% 14.9.2011
Present: Mr.Rahul Bhaga Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No.17117/2011
(for exemDtion) in CM(M)
No.1064/2011
*
Allowed subject to jus : exceptions.
CM(M) No.1064/2011
. The order impugned before this court is the order dated
30.8.2011 vide which the review apphcation filed by the defendant seeking review of the order dated 19.8.2011 had been dismissed.
Vide order dated 19.8.2011 defendant's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments. The order dated
19.8.2011 in fact makes d reference to the earlier order dated
09.5.2011. On 09.5.2011 tike court had noted that the issues in this case had been framed on 13.4.2009; plaintiff's evidence was closed on 22.5.2010 thereafter the matter was fixed for four consecutive dates i.e. on 29.7.2010, 16.9.2010, 28.10.2010 and 12.01.2011 after the evidence of the defendant; DW-1 had been examined in part on 12.01.2011; the list of witnesses had not been filed; on that date itself i.e.on 09.5 the list of witnesses had sufficient cause it was take
2011 the court had recorded that since been filed belatedly without showing n of the record. On 09.5.2011 the court
2011:DHC:19483 had again noted that no witness of the defendant is present and one more opportunity was granted to him to produce the witne at his own responsibihty on the next date which was on 19.8.2011; on which date since no witness was again present on behalf of the defendant the defendant evidence was closed on 30.8.2011.
Application seeking review of the order dated 19.8.2011 had also been dismissed. Attitude of the defendant is clearly lackadaisical, casual and bordering on neghgence.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earher counsel who was dealing with the matter was not diligently pursuing the case and the litigant should not suffer for the act of his counsel. He states that apart from
DW-1 whose testimony stands completed two other witnesses namely Anil Verma and one Officer from the office of Sub-
No.1064/2011
*
Allowed subject to jus : exceptions.
CM(M) No.1064/2011
. The order impugned before this court is the order dated
30.8.2011 vide which the review apphcation filed by the defendant seeking review of the order dated 19.8.2011 had been dismissed.
Vide order dated 19.8.2011 defendant's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments. The order dated
19.8.2011 in fact makes d reference to the earlier order dated
09.5.2011. On 09.5.2011 tike court had noted that the issues in this case had been framed on 13.4.2009; plaintiff's evidence was closed on 22.5.2010 thereafter the matter was fixed for four consecutive dates i.e. on 29.7.2010, 16.9.2010, 28.10.2010 and 12.01.2011 after the evidence of the defendant; DW-1 had been examined in part on 12.01.2011; the list of witnesses had not been filed; on that date itself i.e.on 09.5 the list of witnesses had sufficient cause it was take
2011 the court had recorded that since been filed belatedly without showing n of the record. On 09.5.2011 the court
2011:DHC:19483 had again noted that no witness of the defendant is present and one more opportunity was granted to him to produce the witne at his own responsibihty on the next date which was on 19.8.2011; on which date since no witness was again present on behalf of the defendant the defendant evidence was closed on 30.8.2011.
Application seeking review of the order dated 19.8.2011 had also been dismissed. Attitude of the defendant is clearly lackadaisical, casual and bordering on neghgence.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the earher counsel who was dealing with the matter was not diligently pursuing the case and the litigant should not suffer for the act of his counsel. He states that apart from
DW-1 whose testimony stands completed two other witnesses namely Anil Verma and one Officer from the office of Sub-
before the trial court is tomorrow i.e. on 15.9.2011 for final arguments.
In the interest of justice keeping in view the submissions made one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner/defendant to produce his witnesses at his own responsibility. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce Anil Kumar on the next date fixed before the trial court i.e. 15.9.2011 for recording his evidence.
Trial court will ensure that only one more opportunity is granted to ses the petitioner to produce the second witness. No further adjournment shall be granted as this is a case of the year 2008; as noted supra several dates have already been taken. This order is passed subject payment of Rs.25000/- as costs. With these directions this petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to trial court. c
A copy of this order be given dsati to the petitioner under signature of the Court Master.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
In the interest of justice keeping in view the submissions made one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner/defendant to produce his witnesses at his own responsibility. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce Anil Kumar on the next date fixed before the trial court i.e. 15.9.2011 for recording his evidence.
Trial court will ensure that only one more opportunity is granted to ses the petitioner to produce the second witness. No further adjournment shall be granted as this is a case of the year 2008; as noted supra several dates have already been taken. This order is passed subject payment of Rs.25000/- as costs. With these directions this petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to trial court. c
A copy of this order be given dsati to the petitioner under signature of the Court Master.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JUDGMENT