ARCHNA STEEL LTD Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing of (sic) order dated 2.8.2002, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rajpura, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for appointment of a Commission for examination of his earlier counsel Mr. Randeep Singh Surjewala, Advocate. It is appropriate to mention that the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed on 26.9.1997 after the issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence Thereafter, an application was filed for withdrawal of the suit with permission to approach this Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 147 : (1997)5 SCC 120. The aforementioned application was allowed and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.9.1997 (P-2). Subsequently, an application under Section 114 read with Order LVII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') for review of the order dated 26.9.1997, was filed by the petitioner through its counsel Shri Randeep Singh Surjewala. There was delay of 11 days in filing the review application, which led to the filing of another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code, seeking condonation of delay. In the aforementioned application issues were framed but no evidence was led. Eventually another application for issuance of Commission to examine Shri Randeep Singh Surjewala as witness, in the application seeking condonation of delay, was filed. The learned Civil Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order :

(2.) MR . Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Order XXVI Rule 4 and Order XVI Rule 19, witnesses can be examined by issuance of a Commission by the Court, especially when they are lawful resident to a place (within) jurisdiction of the trial Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgment of this Court in cases of Pritam Singh v. Smt. Vidya and another, 1976 PLR 877 and Mrs. Tara Sarup v. M/s Piara Singh Gurmail Singh and others, 1984 PLR 605.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and pursuing the record, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The application for reviewing order dated 26.9.1997 was filed on 10.11.1997 and issues were framed on 11.11.1999. No witness has been examined by the petitioner to prove his allegation. A large number of opportunities have been availed for that purpose. It is in these circumstances that the trial Court has refused to grant permission to examine the witness by issuance of Commission. There is no merit in this petition. 6. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.2.2006. Petition dismissed.