Punjab and Haryana High Court
CR/8728/2016 of JYOTI Vs HARBHAJAN KAUR on 30 December 2016
of 2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8728 of 2016 Date of decision : 30.12.2016 Smt. Jyoti ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Harbhajan Kaur ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL. Present: Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AMIT RAWAL, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CR No.8&728 of 201
-|-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
CR No 8728 of JO16Date of decision : 30.12.2016
smt. Jyoti
_. Petitioner
Versus
smt. Harbhajan Kaur
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL,
Present:Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.---- AMIT RAWAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order dated22.09.2016, whereby the application for seeking permission to cross-examine the AW! Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and AW2 Jaswant Singh whoseevidence was closed by order dated 26.04.2016, has been dismissed. Copyof which has been handed over to this Court during the course of hearing ofthis petition.
Ms. Himani Kapila, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofpetitioner submits that the absence of the counsel was not within his controlas petitioner could not have cross-examine the aforementioned witnesses onhis own. An effort was made to recall the order but the Court below hasagain committed illegality by dismissing the application. The petitioner iswilling to cross-examine the aforementioned witnesses namely AW1 Smt.Harbhajan Kaur and AW2 Jaswant Singh subject to the terms and CR No.8&728 of 201
conditions|
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraisedthe paper book and of the view that though order would reveal that manyopportunities have been given to the petitioner for cross-examination of theaforementioned witnesses but they did not avail the opportunity, resultedinto passing of the order dated 26.04.2016. Order dated 26.04.2016 readsthus:- “Present:- Sh. S.S. Sohal, Advocate, Counselfor|
petitioner.
Nonefor respondent.
Case again called after lunch time and again.PWs Harbhajan Kaur and Jaswant Singh are present fortheir cross-examination, but neither respondent nor hercounsel has turned. Moreover, witnesses were also presentfor their cross-examination on the last date of hearing andon request of Id. Counsel for respondent, case wasadjourned for cross-examination of above said witnessesfor today. Therefore, Ifind no reason to adjourn the casefor cross-examination of the witnesses. Hence, cross-examination of PWI Harbhajan Kaur and AW2 JaswantSingh is treated as nil. Therefore, ld. Counselfor petitionerclosed oral evidence. Now to come upon 12.05.2016 fortendering documents.
Sd/- Madan LalCJSD/GSP/26. 04. 201
Though effort was made to recall the order but the Court belowhas dismissed the application by observing that they had to avail the remedyunder the law by filing the revision or otherwise.
I deem it appropriate to allow the present revision petition and CR No.8&728 of 201-3- grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforementionedwitnesses namely Smt. Harbhajan Kaur AW] and Jaswant Singh AW2,subject to payment of cost of 45,000/-. which shall be condition precedent,If the costs is not paid as directed, the order passed already by the Courtsbelow shall stands restored.
With the aforementioned observations, impugned order is setaside and present revision petition stands allowed.