Full Text
Translation output
A-157
% 16.09.2011
Present: Mr. Bhagat Singh with Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 17362/2011 in CM(M) NO. 1082/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) NO. 1082/2011 and CM 17361/2011 (stav)
Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in the present petition he has impugned two orders yet he is restricting himself only to the order dated 08.09.2011 vide which the right of the present petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) had been closed.
Present petition is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian
Succession Act: issues were framed on 21.04.2011 on which date the matter had been fixed for the evidence of the petitioner (in the court below); evidence by way of affidavit had been filed on 06.06.2011; in the intervening dates, an apphcation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure had been filed by the respondent which was listed for arguments and finally disposed of on 26.08.2011; it was only on the last date i.e. 08.09.2011, that the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) were present for their cross-examination; however they being senior citizens, the court had noted that the matter had been passed over at the request of the respondent No. 3; even after the pass over learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 was not willing to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner on the ground that he was under a bona fide impression that the matter had been listed in the category of
2011:DHC:19446 miscellaneous arguments and not for the petitioner's evidence. This was substantiated by the record as also by the admission of the Ahlmad of the said court.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 08.09.2011 is modified; it has been informed to the court that this matter is now fixed for 17.09.2011 i.e. tomorrow which would be a too short period for summoning of the said witnesses of the petitioner; one last opportunity is granted to the present petitioner to summon the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) for the date after the next date i.e. after the date of 17.09.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the cost in terms of the earher order passed by the trial court be paid positively before the next date i.e. by tomorrow 17.09.2011.
This order is also passed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial court; the trial court shall also ensure that no unnecessary adjournment is granted to the parties for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) and after the date of 17.09.2011 only one such opportunity shall be granted.
With these directions, petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court
Master.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19446
% 16.09.2011
Present: Mr. Bhagat Singh with Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 17362/2011 in CM(M) NO. 1082/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) NO. 1082/2011 and CM 17361/2011 (stav)
Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in the present petition he has impugned two orders yet he is restricting himself only to the order dated 08.09.2011 vide which the right of the present petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) had been closed.
Present petition is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian
Succession Act: issues were framed on 21.04.2011 on which date the matter had been fixed for the evidence of the petitioner (in the court below); evidence by way of affidavit had been filed on 06.06.2011; in the intervening dates, an apphcation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure had been filed by the respondent which was listed for arguments and finally disposed of on 26.08.2011; it was only on the last date i.e. 08.09.2011, that the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) were present for their cross-examination; however they being senior citizens, the court had noted that the matter had been passed over at the request of the respondent No. 3; even after the pass over learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 was not willing to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner on the ground that he was under a bona fide impression that the matter had been listed in the category of
2011:DHC:19446 miscellaneous arguments and not for the petitioner's evidence. This was substantiated by the record as also by the admission of the Ahlmad of the said court.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 08.09.2011 is modified; it has been informed to the court that this matter is now fixed for 17.09.2011 i.e. tomorrow which would be a too short period for summoning of the said witnesses of the petitioner; one last opportunity is granted to the present petitioner to summon the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) for the date after the next date i.e. after the date of 17.09.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the cost in terms of the earher order passed by the trial court be paid positively before the next date i.e. by tomorrow 17.09.2011.
This order is also passed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial court; the trial court shall also ensure that no unnecessary adjournment is granted to the parties for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the petitioner (in the court below) and after the date of 17.09.2011 only one such opportunity shall be granted.
With these directions, petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court
Master.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19446
JUDGMENT