Full Text
Translation output
A-13
% 10.8.2011
Present: Mr.Abhimunya K.Singhla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.N.Popli, Advocate for respondent no.l.
Mr.H.C.Mittal, Advocate for respondent no.2.
+CM(M) No.871!2009
*
Order impugned before this court is the order dated 20.5.2009 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed. Controversy started with an earlier order passed on
30.4.2007; on that date court had noted that no evidence has been filed by the plaintiff till date; thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Contention before this Court is that affidavit of PW-1 had already been filed. This fact had been recorded by the trial judge on 09.5.2005; PW-1 had also been cross-examined in part. Thereafter on 04.4.2006 the court had recoded that the opportunity of the defendant to further cross- examine the plaintiff was closed as none had appeared for the defendant.
This was on 04.4.2006 and the matter was thereafter adjourned for
11.9.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that apart from PW-1 there is no other evidence which has either been led or proposed to be led. It is accordingly clarified that evidence of PW-1 was already on record and plaintiff was cross-examined in part; when thereafter his evidence was closed on 30.4.2007.
With these clarification petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 10, 2011
2011:DHC:8821
% 10.8.2011
Present: Mr.Abhimunya K.Singhla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.N.Popli, Advocate for respondent no.l.
Mr.H.C.Mittal, Advocate for respondent no.2.
+CM(M) No.871!2009
*
Order impugned before this court is the order dated 20.5.2009 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed. Controversy started with an earlier order passed on
30.4.2007; on that date court had noted that no evidence has been filed by the plaintiff till date; thereafter the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Contention before this Court is that affidavit of PW-1 had already been filed. This fact had been recorded by the trial judge on 09.5.2005; PW-1 had also been cross-examined in part. Thereafter on 04.4.2006 the court had recoded that the opportunity of the defendant to further cross- examine the plaintiff was closed as none had appeared for the defendant.
This was on 04.4.2006 and the matter was thereafter adjourned for
11.9.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that apart from PW-1 there is no other evidence which has either been led or proposed to be led. It is accordingly clarified that evidence of PW-1 was already on record and plaintiff was cross-examined in part; when thereafter his evidence was closed on 30.4.2007.
With these clarification petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 10, 2011
2011:DHC:8821
JUDGMENT