Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Ajit Singh and others - Petitioners
Vs.
Anchal Singh and others - Respondents
CM No. 16037-CII-2018 in/and CR No. 3100 of 2018
Decided On : 06-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Lakhanpal, Adv.
The court has the discretion to allow the advancement of the date of hearing by consent of the parties, taking into consideration the stage of the suit and the absence of evidence.
Headnote:
Advancement of Hearing Date - Civil Procedure - The court allowed the advancement of the date of hearing in the accompanying petition by consent of the parties, setting aside the impugned order and granting permission to the petitioners to file a reply within one month of the filing of the amended plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The application sought advancement of the date of hearing in the accompanying petition, which had been adjourned to a later date. The respondent argued that the impugned order was passed after the defendants had not filed their written statement despite sufficient opportunities.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and granted permission to the petitioners to file a reply within one month of the filing of the amended plaint, considering the stage of the suit and the fact that no evidence had been led so far.
Issues: Advancement of hearing date, sufficiency of opportunities granted to defendants, stage of the suit, absence of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the stage of the suit, the absence of evidence, and the consent of the parties to advance the date of hearing, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting permission to the petitioners to file a reply.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and permission was granted to the petitioners to file a reply within one month of the filing of the amended plaint.
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
CM No. 16037-CII-2018
By this application, advancement of the date of hearing in the accompanying petition is sought, which otherwise stands adjourned to 19.12.2018, its turn not having come up on the last date of hearing, i.e. 24.07.2018.
2. Even before notice was issued in this application, Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent no. 1/non-applicant and has filed his power of attorney which is taken on record.
3. The application is allowed and by consent of learned counsel for the parties, the date of hearing fixed in the accompanying petition is advanced to today itself.
CR No. 3100 of 2018
4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, it having been passed after the petitioners (defendants no. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11) had not filed their written statement despite sufficient number of opportunities granted.
5. On query to learned counsel for the parties, it is not denied that the suit before the learned trial Court is at a stage of filing an amended plaint after the legal representatives of some of the defendants had been substituted, the said defendants having died.
6. It is also not denied that no evidence has been led so far in the suit.
7. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed with the impugned order dated 02.07.2016 set aside and permission granted to the petitioners to file a reply within one month of the filing of the amended plaint, subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs. 3,000/-.
