Kewal Krishan vs Harnek Singh - 2001 Supreme(SC) 545

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2001 Supreme(SC) 545

2001(2) Supreme 506
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Kewal Krishan -Appellant
versus
Harnek Singh (Dead) by LRs. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10875 of 2000)
Decided on 22-3-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Vidya Dhar Gour, Advocate.

Important Points

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Ends of justice requires that the appellant be granted one more opportunity to bad evidence. Order closing evidence of appellant in set aside but appellant will pay to respondent costs fixed at Rs. 500/- is admitted that the copy of the stay order alongwith the application was received on 12-7-2000 in the office of the AFO (D) PHG, i.e., after the supply had been disconnected.
2. That the paras under reply is wrong and denied in the light of the submissions made in above paras.

Subject

Procedural Law - Evidence

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.18 R.2(1), O.18 R.2(4)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136

Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 136-SLP against closing evidence of appellant-Appellant was ready to give evidence but was not permitted to do so-Last opportunity sought-Whether be granted? (Yes, but on payment of costs of 500/- to respondent).

Held : In our view, end of justice requires that the Appellant be given one more opportunity of leading evidence. Accordingly the order closing the evidence of the Appellant is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the Appellant to lead his evidence. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. Respondent absent inspite of service.

3. We have heard Mr. Gaur. Mr. Gaur submits that Appellant/Plaintiff was present in Court and ready to give evidence but was not permitted to do so. Mr. Gaur states that if given one more opportunity the Appellant will, on the date/s fixed for hearing by the trial Court, keep himself and all his witnesses available in Court and will lead their evidence without fail. Mr. Gaur states that the Appellant will not ask for adjournment on any ground whatsoever.

4. In our view, end of justice requires that the Appellant be given one more opportunity of leading evidence. Accordingly the order closing the evidence of the Appellant is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the Appellant to lead his evidence.

5. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appellant to pay to the Respondent costs fixed at Rs. 500/-.

(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed.

***************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (Dead) by LRs., 2001(2) Supreme 506 : AIR 2001 SC 1440 : AIR 2001 SC 1454

00027

Click Here to Read the rest of this document