53 chances of rebuttal evidence shocking, Punjab and Haryana HC orders probe

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 11

Taking cognisance of over 50 opportunities granted to a party for “rebuttal evidence” in a civil suit pending for nearly 12 years, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered an inquiry into the matter after describing it as “a shocking state of affairs showing the callous approach of the court”.

Give names

Advertisement

District and Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, is directed to conduct an inquiry and inform this court with regard to names of the presiding officers who dealt with this case and the span of time for which they did so. HC Bench

The Bench has also called for the names of the presiding officers, who dealt with the case, along with the “span of time for which they did so”.

Justice HS Madaan of the High Court further called for an explanation from the presiding officer before whom the matter was pending. The directions came on a petition filed by Robin Bhasin against Deepak Dhar and other respondents. As the case came up for resumed hearing, the petitioner’s counsel sought the court’s permission to withdraw the revision petition as he intended to take recourse to another remedy available to him under the law.

Justice Madan, however, observed that a perusal of the impugned order showed that the civil suit was pending for about 12 years. The defendants closed their evidence on January 8, 2019, and the case was fixed for January 16, 2019, for rebuttal evidence, if any. Otherwise, it was to come up before the court concerned for arguments. Thereafter, 53 effective opportunities were given to the plaintiff for rebuttal evidence.

Calling for the explanation, Justice Madan added the counsel for the revisionist had sought withdrawal of the revision petition. But a probe into the matter was required as to how 53 opportunities were granted for rebuttal evidence.

Before parting with the case, Justice Madaan directed the District and Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, to conduct the inquiry and inform the court of the names of the presiding officers. Copies of the interim orders passed in the matter were also directed to be sent to the HC, along with the report by the District and Sessions Judge. For the purpose, Justice Madaan set a fortnight’s deadline.“The District Judge would append his comments on the explanation by the presiding officer. The presiding officer of the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit in question at the earliest, thereafter informing this court in that regard. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. The inquiry report sent by District and Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, be put up before this court as and when it is received in the Registry,” Justice Madaan concluded.