Full Text
Translation output
Wj
A-52
% 19.9.2011
Present: Mr.C.C.S.Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.
+C(M)No.l091/2011 & CM No.17497/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
06.8.2011 vide which the order dated 28.5.2011 closing the right of the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff had been recalled; in the interest of justice one more last opportunity had been granted to the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff subject to cost of Rs.800/-. This order is impugned.
The contention of the plaintiff is that last opportunity had already been granted to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff on
02.4.2011 and the matter has been adjourned to 26.5.2011; again the matter was adjourned to 28.5.2011. The discretion has not been exercised fairly and judiciously by the court below. This submission has been noted. The record, however, shows that on
20.7.2011 a proposal had been mooted by the defendant that he will not dispossess the plaintiff forcibly without due process of law.
Plaintiff had also taken time to consider the proposal; meaning thereby that there was some round of negotiable talks between the parties. The impugned order has noted all these contentions but has further noted that interest of justice demands that one more last opportunity be granted to the defendant to cross-examine the
2011:DHC:19488 witnesses of the plaintiff. This suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction; it is essentially a dispute between a landlord and tenant; the plaintiff is the tenant.
This discretion exercised by the court below in no manner has been exercised wrongly. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:19488
A-52
% 19.9.2011
Present: Mr.C.C.S.Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.
+C(M)No.l091/2011 & CM No.17497/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
06.8.2011 vide which the order dated 28.5.2011 closing the right of the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff had been recalled; in the interest of justice one more last opportunity had been granted to the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff subject to cost of Rs.800/-. This order is impugned.
The contention of the plaintiff is that last opportunity had already been granted to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff on
02.4.2011 and the matter has been adjourned to 26.5.2011; again the matter was adjourned to 28.5.2011. The discretion has not been exercised fairly and judiciously by the court below. This submission has been noted. The record, however, shows that on
20.7.2011 a proposal had been mooted by the defendant that he will not dispossess the plaintiff forcibly without due process of law.
Plaintiff had also taken time to consider the proposal; meaning thereby that there was some round of negotiable talks between the parties. The impugned order has noted all these contentions but has further noted that interest of justice demands that one more last opportunity be granted to the defendant to cross-examine the
2011:DHC:19488 witnesses of the plaintiff. This suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction; it is essentially a dispute between a landlord and tenant; the plaintiff is the tenant.
This discretion exercised by the court below in no manner has been exercised wrongly. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:19488
JUDGMENT