PARGAT SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, whereby, the application moved by the plaintiff-respondents has been allowed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession by specific performance of agreement to sell against the petitioner-defendant. During pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the respondents to cross-examine the witness of the petitioner-defendant. Reply of the said application was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the application was allowed vide order dated 01.12016, which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner and the petitioner tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on various dates and even last opportunity was granted to the respondents but still no cross-examination was done by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after getting so many opportunities, the application was moved just to delay the matter and harrass the petitioner. Reply filed to the application was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel also submits that only the petitioner is the sufferer. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application moved by the respondents was allowed and the petitioner has not been compensated as cost has been ordered to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Tarn Taran.