Poonam and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

IN

Poonam a

State of H

CORAM

Present:

VIKAS S

¶1India for s by learned for direct and secur the case.

¶2the respon Addl. A.G behalf of

¶3minor chi THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIG

CR-

Dat and others

Versus Haryana and another M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. C.P. Tiwana, Advocate f

*****

SURI, J. This is a petition under Arti setting aside the order dated 17.0 d Civil Judge (Senior Division)- ion to the learned trial Court to re their appearance for examina On an advance copy of the pe ndents, Mr. Devyansh, Advocat G., Haryana, is present in Cou the respondents. Briefly stated, the plaintiff/p ildren of deceased Rinku son of NJAB AND HARYANA GARH -6330-2024 (O&M) e of decision: 29.10.2024 ...Petitioners ...Respondents VIKAS SURI for the petitioners. icle 227 of the Constitution of

07.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed -cum-CJM, Kaithal, and further o summon the witnesses afresh ation for proper adjudication of etition having been served upon te for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, urt and puts in appearance on petitioners are the widow and f Roshan Lal, who is alleged to

have unf

06.03.202 order dat Court ord

4.

12.03.202 P-2) for money, w assessed d

13.03.202 witnesses appearanc was order On the a Pankaj w remained ensure at summons closed by

¶5have impu

6.

fortunately died on being sudd

¶21On completion of the pleadin ed 13.09.2022 and the plaintif der on 17.07.2024, impugned her Learned counsel for the p 24, the plaintiff/petitioners had m summoning two official witn which was allowed by the learne diet money was deposited with 24 (Annexure P-3). It is further is a police official, who despi ce and accordingly, vide order d red to be secured through non-b adjourned hearing, the summon was received back with a reques unexecuted. The learned trial C ttendance of both the witness to the said witnesses for 17 d order was passed, whereby e Court order. The plaintiff/petitioners agg ugned the same by way of the pr Learned counsel for the pe denly hit by a stray bull on ngs, the issues were framed vide ffs' evidence stands closed by rein. etitioners has argued that on moved an application (Annexure nesses and for depositing diet ed trial Court. Accordingly, the the Court against receipt dated submitted that one of the said ite being served did not put in dated 10.04.2024, his presence bailable warrant for 04.07.2024. ns issued to witness Dr. Rajat st and the non-bailable warrant Court instead of taking steps to es, ordered issuance of fresh

7.07.2024, on which date, the evidence of the plaintiffs was grieved by the aforesaid order, resent petition. etitioners has argued that the

following

¶7able assist

8.

d order is not sustainable and g grounds:- i. That once the process ha summoning the official w Officer, Civil Hospital Ka with regard to specified po being a police official, i Lines, Kaithal along with No.018 dated 07.03.2021 duly served, the Court w attendance by coercive me issuing summons afresh. ii. Non-bailable warrant ha police official, i.e., Polic therefore, no summon wa Rather steps were to be ta warrant already issued.

I have heard learned counse tance, perused the paper book. Admittedly, on an applica rs, the following two witnesses w i. Dr. Rajat Pankaj Saharan alongwith Register of Software): M4060012121 Doctor): RPS/PMR/20/21 Rinku son of Roshan La Majra tehsil Rajound Dist ii. MHC, P.S. Civil Line, liable to be set aside on the as been issued by the Court for witnesses, one being the Medical aithal along with official record ost mortem report and the other i.e., MHC Police Station Civil DDR register pertaining to GD 1, and the same having been was duty bound to enforce their ethod prescribed in law and not aving been issued against the ce Station Civil Lines, Kaithal, as required to be issued again. aken to execute the non-bailable el for the parties and with their ation moved by the plaintiff/ were summoned:- n M.O. Civil Hospital, Kaithal PMR No. (Generated by 100082, PMR No. (Given by 1 dated 7.3.2021 of deceased al resident of village Santokh tt. Kaithal. Kaithal alongwith Register of

¶9aforesaid witness vi fresh sum

04.07.202 ordered to However, summons some req (police of be issued apparently previous subsequen summons Perusal of observatio witnesses

¶10official),

(DDR) GD No. 018 dat Kumar son of Roshan Lal Undisputedly, vide order d witnesses was served whereas th iz. Dr. Rajat Pankaj, was receive mmons were ordered to be iss 24 and the attendance of the oth o be secured through non-baila , on the subsequent hearing, i.e to the witness Dr. Rajat Pankaj quest and the non-bailable wa fficial) remained unexecuted, fr d to both the witnesses for y seems to have overlooked th hearing while passing the orde nt hearing without even advert , proceeded to pass the impu f the impugned order shows tha on regarding the service report who were summoned at th rs. Surprisingly, on the non app the trial Court has straight away ted 7.3.2021 lodged by Sunil l r/o Santokh Majra. dated 10.04.2024, one of the he summons issued to the other ed back unserved. Accordingly, sued to Dr. Rajat Pankaj for her witness (police official) was able warrant for the same date. e. on 04.07.2024, even though was received back served with arrant issued to other witness resh summons were ordered to

17.07.2024. The trial Court he proceedings recorded on the r dated 04.07.2024 and on the ting to the report on the said ugned order dated 17.07.2024. at the same does not record any on the summons issued to the he instance of the plaintiff/ pearance of the witness (police y ordered to issue non-bailable

warrant. T law, wher service, is defiance o

¶11opportuni are alway evidence,

¶12circumsta opinion th the learne sustain in attendanc afforded t responden affording evidence.

¶13trial Cou (Annexur

14.

The same is also contrary to th reby the attendance of the witne s required to be secured first th of the same, then through non-ba It is well settled that every ity to lead evidence in support ys inclined to adjudicate upon the admissible in law. On profound consideration ances of the present case in its e hat prima facie there is irregular ed trial Court. In view thereo n law. Due opportunity to lead e of the summoned official w to the plaintiff/petitioners. No pr nts in case the dispute between due opportunity to the plaint The same would also be in the i Resultantly, the present revis d order dated 17.07.2024 (Anne urt shall proceed from the stag re P-4). Accordingly, two effective o he well established procedural ess, who fails to appear despite hrough bailable warrant and, in ailable warrant. party must be afforded a fair of their pleadings. The Courts e merits of the case after taking n of the peculiar facts and entirety, I am of the considered rity in the procedure adopted by f, the impugned order cannot d evidence, after enforcing the witnesses, was required to be rejudice would be caused to the the parties is adjudicated after tiff/petitioners to adduce their interest of justice. sion petition is accepted and the exure P-6) is set aside and the ge of order dated 10.04.2024 opportunities are granted to the

plaintiff/p the offic summone issued for the summ

15.

16.

October sumit.k

petitioners to conclude their e rs having already sought the assi cial witnesses, their attendan ed record be ensured by the trial r the said purpose. The trial Co mons so issued through the Proces The revision petition is dispo Pending applications, if any, r 29, 2024 entire evidence. The plaintiff/ istance of the Court to summon nce along with the relevant Court. Fresh summons may be ourt shall ensure due service of ss Server of the Court. osed of in the aforesaid terms. also stand disposed of.

(VIKAS SURI) JUDGE