Full Text
Translation output
A-5 . .
% 28.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ram N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gurmeet S.Narula, Advocate for respondent.
^fT)
+CM(M) No.168/2010 & CM No.2208/2010
*
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated
11.1.2010 vide which the defence of the defendant stood closed and the matter had been fixed for final arguments.
The present suit is a suit for recovery; the recovery was for the cost of the vehicle which was got burnt in an accident; the driver had also succumbed to his injuries. Issues have been framed on 23.10.2005; onus to discharge issues was on the defendant. Defendant had to lead his evidence in the first instance. Record shows that w.e.f. 21.12.2005 to 10.8.2006 eight chances had been granted to the defendant to lead its evidence; two witnesses have been brought by the defendant; they were cross-examined and discharged; thereafter on 12.10.2006 DE was closed. CM(M) had been filed before High Court; vide order dated
04.2.2006 the order dated 12.10.2006 had been set aside and subject to cost of ?11000/- one more last opportunity had been granted to the defendant to lead its evidence. Record shows that thereafter on the subsequent date i.e. on 03.3.2009 the defendant evidence was again not present. Presiding officer was on leave on
2011:DHC:8801
04.5.2009 and matter was thereafter adjourned to 15.5.2009. On
15.5.2009 the evidence of the defendant was closed. On 22.9.2009 the order dated 15.5.2009 was set aside by the ADJ on an application filed by the defenadant and one opportunity was again granted to the defendant to lead its evidence. Matter has been fixed for 20.11.2009. On that date also since witnesses were not present the matter had been adjourned to 11.1.2010 on which date the impugned order was passed. Checkered history of the case clearly shows that the defendant has been not only lackadaisical and careless but also neghgent in prosecuting the case; he is obviously not interested. Record speaks volumes. The impugned order in no manner calls for any interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 28, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:8801
% 28.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ram N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gurmeet S.Narula, Advocate for respondent.
^fT)
+CM(M) No.168/2010 & CM No.2208/2010
*
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated
11.1.2010 vide which the defence of the defendant stood closed and the matter had been fixed for final arguments.
The present suit is a suit for recovery; the recovery was for the cost of the vehicle which was got burnt in an accident; the driver had also succumbed to his injuries. Issues have been framed on 23.10.2005; onus to discharge issues was on the defendant. Defendant had to lead his evidence in the first instance. Record shows that w.e.f. 21.12.2005 to 10.8.2006 eight chances had been granted to the defendant to lead its evidence; two witnesses have been brought by the defendant; they were cross-examined and discharged; thereafter on 12.10.2006 DE was closed. CM(M) had been filed before High Court; vide order dated
04.2.2006 the order dated 12.10.2006 had been set aside and subject to cost of ?11000/- one more last opportunity had been granted to the defendant to lead its evidence. Record shows that thereafter on the subsequent date i.e. on 03.3.2009 the defendant evidence was again not present. Presiding officer was on leave on
2011:DHC:8801
04.5.2009 and matter was thereafter adjourned to 15.5.2009. On
15.5.2009 the evidence of the defendant was closed. On 22.9.2009 the order dated 15.5.2009 was set aside by the ADJ on an application filed by the defenadant and one opportunity was again granted to the defendant to lead its evidence. Matter has been fixed for 20.11.2009. On that date also since witnesses were not present the matter had been adjourned to 11.1.2010 on which date the impugned order was passed. Checkered history of the case clearly shows that the defendant has been not only lackadaisical and careless but also neghgent in prosecuting the case; he is obviously not interested. Record speaks volumes. The impugned order in no manner calls for any interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 28, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:8801
JUDGMENT