Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.
Jaswant Singh and others - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
Manjit Singh - Respondent - Respondent
CR-29 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Adjournment and Examination of Witnesses
Headnote
EVIDENCE CLOSURE - ADJOURNMENT - The court allowed the petitioners one opportunity to examine a witness whose evidence could not be recorded due to a 'no work day' observed by the District Bar Association, subject to payment of cost and with a condition that no further request for adjournment would be entertained.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the closure of their evidence without examining remaining witnesses due to a 'no work day' observed by the District Bar Association.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioners one opportunity to examine the witness subject to payment of cost and with a condition that no further request for adjournment would be entertained.
Issues: Challenge to closure of evidence without examining remaining witnesses, impact of 'no work day' observed by the District Bar Association on the examination of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the limited prayer of the petitioners and granted them one opportunity to examine the witness, balancing the interest of justice with the impact of the 'no work day' observed by the District Bar Association.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioners were afforded one opportunity to examine the witness subject to payment of cost and with a condition that no further request for adjournment would be entertained.
Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) whereby their evidence has been closed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and the matter had been adjourned to 23.11.2022 for recording the evidence of the defendants. On 23.11.2022, a resolution had been passed by the District Bar Association to observe 'no work day' and therefore, the witnesses could not be examined. He further submits that the closure of evidence of the petitioners/defendants without examining the remaining witnesses would cause serious prejudice to their case and prays for only one opportunity to examine DW5 Bihari Lal.
3. Heard.
4. In view of the limited prayer of the petitioner for affording them one opportunity to examine DW5, I intend to dispose of this petition without issuance of notice to the respondent. The petitioners are only seeking one opportunity to examine the witness who could not be examined on 23.11.2022 as the Lawyers had abstained from work. It would be in the interest of justice if the petitioners are granted one opportunity subject to payment of cost.
5. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioners would be afforded one opportunity to examine DW5 Bihari Lal subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-, to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will not make any further request to adjourn the matter.
6. If the respondent is aggrieved by the order of this Court, he would be at liberty to approach this Court by filing an appropriate application.
Petition allowed.
