Himachal Pradesh High Court
None 162 of 2016 on 29 December 2017
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 162 of 2016 Decided on : 29.12.2017
Kamlesh Kumari
…..Petitioner.
Versus
Nimmi Devi & others
….Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1]For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo.
Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)
The petitioner herein is arrayed as co-defendant No.4 in Civil Suit No. 78 of 2010, titled as Nimmi Devi vs. Union of India & others. The petitioner herein, claimed in the aforestated suit, benefits of all pensionery dues/retiral dues, of her deceased husband, one Salig Ram, (i) on anvil, of, after her deceased husband dissolving his marriage with one Smt. Nimmi Devi, the plaintiff in the suit, his contracting a valid marriage with her. After the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence in the affirmative, several opportunities were granted to co-defendant No.4, petitioner herein, to adduce her evidence in respect of her aforesaid contentions. Though, three opportunities were purveyed to her, yet all the opportunities 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
aforesaid remained unavailed by her. Consequently, the learned trial Judge closed the evidence of co-defendant No.4. Hence the instant petition stands instituted before this Court. 2. Even though, some opportunities were granted to co-defendant No.4, petitioner herein, by the learned trial Judge AND though, the same remained unavailed, yet, for ensuring that her contentions, are not precluded to obtain proof, thereupon this Court is constrained to quash and set aside the impugned order. The instant petition is allowed. The learned trial Judge is directed to allow co-defendant No.4, petitioner herein, to adduce her evidence before him. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Judge on 15.3.2018. All pending applications, also stand disposed of.
29[th] December, 2017 (kck)
(Sureshwar Thakur), Judge.