HARI SINGH Vs. HARCHAND SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged order dated 7.4.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Ludhiana by which his application for seeking direction of the Court to the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana for examining petitioner/plaintiff to determine his permanent disability and issuing a certificate accordingly has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lac as damages along with interest @ 24% per annum out of which Rs. 80,000/- has been claimed towards medical expenses and Rs. 1,20,000/- has been claimed towards damage suffered, loss caused of avocation, mental and physical agony, hardship and torture on account of injuries suffered by the plaintiff at the hands of defendants/respondents for which plaintiff had registered a criminal case against defendants/respondents under Sections 325/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') vide FIR No. 83/1996 at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. The plaintiff was medico-legally examined by the Doctors of Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 8.7.1997. In the suit, issues were framed on 12.11.2001. While the evidence of the plaintiff was going on, he filed an application on 15.9.2008 for issuing appropriate directions to the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana to assess permanent disability suffered by the plaintiff on account of injuries caused by the defendants and also to issue a necessary certificate of disability. The defendants filed reply to the application on 17.2.2009 contesting the application on various grounds. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 7.4.2009 declined prayer of the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff has to prove his case independently and cannot use the process of Court to collect evidence. It was further held that if the application is allowed as prayed for, it will amount to delegation of its power by the Court for collecting evidence in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that reasoning adopted by learned trial Court is per se erroneous because in the application filed by him, it has neither been pleaded that the powers of the Court be delegated to the Civil Surgeon nor any assistance of the Court has been sought for collecting evidence. It is submitted that the only prayer has been made before the Court below is for issuing a direction to the Civil Surgeon to assess his permanent disability because during the pendency of the suit the hospital would not issue a disability certificate. In support of his argument, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Kedar Nath and Ors. Firm Hira Lal Bros, and Anr.", (1975) 77 P.L.R. 250 and "Hajira Beevi and Ors. v. Shamila P. Iqbal and Anr., 2004 AIR(Ker) 240, to contend that this Court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in order to advance a cause of justice , can issue direction, which has been sought in the application by the petitioner.