Full Text
Translation output
A-51
% 28.07.2011
Present: Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM(M) No. 862/2011 & CM Nos. 13844-45/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
02.06.2011 vide which PW-1 had been discharged; the matter had been fixed for remaining plaintiff's evidence. Contention before this Court is that the defendant is a poor illiterate lady; on that day, her brother had appeared on her behalf requesting the court for copy of affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff but inspite of copy being handed over to the brother of the defendant, the Court had discharged PW-1. Record shows that the suit had been filed in the year 2005; issues had been framed on 12.01.2010. The Court has noted that the defendant on one pretext or the other is trying to delay the proceedings and is not cross-examining the PW-1; this has been noted in the impugned order. The defendant is now represented through legal aid counsel. In the interest of justice and the facts as narrated hereinabove as also the submission that the affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff had in fact not being handed over to the defendant and this is also borne out from the order dated 25.04.2011 wherein a specific direction had been given to give advance copy of the affidavit to the defendant but the same not having been complied with, the impugned order is set
2011:DHC:8820
/I/1-
% 28.07.2011
Present: Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM(M) No. 862/2011 & CM Nos. 13844-45/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
02.06.2011 vide which PW-1 had been discharged; the matter had been fixed for remaining plaintiff's evidence. Contention before this Court is that the defendant is a poor illiterate lady; on that day, her brother had appeared on her behalf requesting the court for copy of affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff but inspite of copy being handed over to the brother of the defendant, the Court had discharged PW-1. Record shows that the suit had been filed in the year 2005; issues had been framed on 12.01.2010. The Court has noted that the defendant on one pretext or the other is trying to delay the proceedings and is not cross-examining the PW-1; this has been noted in the impugned order. The defendant is now represented through legal aid counsel. In the interest of justice and the facts as narrated hereinabove as also the submission that the affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff had in fact not being handed over to the defendant and this is also borne out from the order dated 25.04.2011 wherein a specific direction had been given to give advance copy of the affidavit to the defendant but the same not having been complied with, the impugned order is set
2011:DHC:8820
/I/1-
aside with a direction that only one opportunity shall be granted to the defendant to cross-examine PW-1. The next date fixed is
29.07.2011. Let PW-1 be summoned for the date after 29.07.2011; the trial Court will thereafter not give any relaxation to the defendant to cross-examine PW-1.
With these directions petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the
29.07.2011. Let PW-1 be summoned for the date after 29.07.2011; the trial Court will thereafter not give any relaxation to the defendant to cross-examine PW-1.
With these directions petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 28, 2011 a
2011:DHC:8820
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 28, 2011 a
2011:DHC:8820
JUDGMENT