PAPPU SINGH Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to paragraph No.3 of the written statement to contend that it is the pleaded case of the defendant No.2 that the plaintiff had in his possession just an affidavit dated 23.11.2006 to base his title to the property-in-suit, whereas it was a loan transaction of R 10,000/- which money the defendant says he borrowed from the plaintiff, with promise to later return it which he says he did; but, the deal has been dishonoured with the institution of the suit claiming the property. This is a matter of evidence and proof and accordingly no opinion is expressed in this order.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4.7.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guruharsahai which is apparently short and non-speaking and deserves to be set aside on that short ground and the case may call for a remand for reconsideration of the application which prays for allowing the petitioners/defendants to cross-examine PW.1/Narinder Singh and PW.2/Surinder Singh. If this opportunity is denied to the petitioners to cross-examine the respondent/plaintiff in person, then the case is certainly lost and the suit will be allowed without affording reasonable opportunity of cross-examination.

(3.) That order does not record how many opportunities were availed for the purpose, but now with the order-sheets placed on record through application required by the previous order of this court, they appear to be seven dates falling between 31.1.2019 to 4.7.2019. The defendants do not deserve to be paid a tribute for their protraction but all the same, the suit property is at stake inviting determination of rights over the same so that the dispute is settled on merits.