KULDEEP KAUR Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-defendant-Kuldeep Kaur has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Moga whereby the trial Court has treated the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by petitioner-defendant No.5 as 'Nil' and also for setting aside impugned order dated 7.4.2017 (Annexure P-6) whereby application for setting aside the impugned order has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present revision petition are that plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.3.201 After completion of pleadings, issues were framed in the suit and thereafter plaintiff tendered his affidavit in his evidence in chief on 19.9.2016 and matter was deferred for cross-examination. Plaintiff was cross-examined by counsel for defendant Nos. 1 to 4 but due to failure on the part of counsel for the petitioner, the cross-examination was treated as 'Nil' and matter was posted to 3.1.2017 for documentary evidence. Thereafter, an application was moved for recalling of impugned order dated 112016 which was also dismissed vide order dated 7.4.2017. Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that counsel for the petitioner was suffering from lung infection and he was advised bed rest from 9.12.2016 to 112.2016. Due to failure on the part of the counsel, the cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner was treated as nil. The application filed by the petitioner for recalling of order dated 12.12.2016 was also dismissed. Learned counsel submits that after 29.10.2016, the matter was adjourned to 12.12.2016 and cross-examination could not be conducted because counsel for the petitioner was unwell. It cannot be said that sufficient opportunities were granted. Moreover, the petitioner should not suffer because of inaction/default on the part of her counsel as the circumstances were beyond her control. At the end, learned counsel submits that one effective opportunity be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine plaintiff-respondent No.1, failing which, a great injustice would be caused to the petitioner.