CR No. 4972 of 2019

2023:PHHC:062180

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(Sr. No. 256)

(1)

CR No. 4972 of 2019

Date of Decision : 01.05.2023

Amarjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Davinder Singh

...Respondent

(2)

CR No. 4019 of 2019

Amarjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Davinder Singh

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for

Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the respondent.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1.

By this common order, two civil revision petitions, the details

of which have been given in the heading of the order, are being decided as

both the civil revision petitions arised out of the same proceeding before the

trial court.

2.

The petitioner had filed a civil suit for the recovery of

`1,35,000/- against the respondent-defendant. On 01.07.2019, the evidence

of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order. Thereafter, the petitioner-

KANCHAN

2023.05.09 17:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

CR No. 4972 of 2019

2023:PHHC:062180

2

plaintiff filed an application for directing the respondent-defendant to

produce the original cheque or in the alternative to give permission to the

petitioner-plaintiff to prove the said cheque by way of secondary evidence.

The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 28.05.2019. Both

the orders i.e. order dated 01.07.2019 and 28.05.2019 has been challenged

by the petitioner-plaintiff by filing CR No. 4972 of 2019 and CR No. 4019

of 2019 respectively.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that keeping in view

the fact that the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by Court vide

order dated 01.07.2019, he had no other option but to file an application

subsequently for seeking production of the original cheque in question or to

allow him to produce the secondary evidence to prove the said cheque.

4.

It may be noticed that once, prior to the filing of the application

seeking the direction to the respondent-defendant to produce the cheque in

question or to allow the petitioner-plaintiff to prove the said cheque by way

of secondary evidence, the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff had already

been closed, hence, the question of allowing the petitioner-plaintiff to prove

the cheque in question through secondary evidence does not arise. Faced

with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one more

opportunity be given to conclude the evidence and to prove the cheque in

question through secondary evidence even if the said opportunity is to be

granted by imposition of cost.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent objects to the said prayer on

the ground that enough opportunities have already been granted to the

petitioner-plaintiff to produce his evidence and the proceedings are being

KANCHAN

2023.05.09 17:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

CR No. 4972 of 2019

2023:PHHC:062180

3

delayed, which fact is causing prejudice to the respondent-defendant.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

7.

In the present case, the only prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff is

to allow him one opportunity to lead entire evidence, even if the said

opportunity is to be granted by imposing cost. The objection of the

respondent-defendant is that enough opportunities have already been

granted and only the delaying tactis are being adopted by the petitioner-

plaintiff to keep the said proceedings pending and further the respondent-

defendant does not have the cheque in his possession, hence, question of

producing the same does not arise.

8.

As per the settled principle of law, all the disputes between the

parties need to be decided on merits by giving due opportunities as far as

possible. Only one further opportunity is being claimed by the petitioner-

plaintiff to l