Back
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Hardial Singh – Appellant
Versus
Niranjan Singh – Respondent
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
The present revision petition assails the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala Sahib vide which the evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.1 was closed by orders of the Court.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 01.07.2019 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant No.1. During the course of the trial, on 04.09.2023, no witness of the petitioner-defendant No.1 was present. The trial Court after observing that numerous opportunities had been availed by petitioner-defendant No.1 to conclude his evidence closed the same by orders of the Court leading to the filing of the revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non-appearance of the petitioner-defendant No.1 on 04.09.2023 was genuine on account of the fact that he was unwell. Reliance has been placed upon the medical card (Annexure P-5). It has been submitted that even otherwise, only one opportunity would be required by the petitioner-defendant No.1 to lead his evidence as only defendant No.
The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and procedural law in achieving the ends of justice, highlighting that the closure of evidence should be a last resort and adequate opportun....
Closing evidence is impermissible when a party has made reasonable efforts to produce a duly served witness, ensuring the right to a fair trial is preserved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
