Balbir Kaur vs Devinder Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 21273-CII of 2013:

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case:

Aggrieved by order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application Annexure P-3 filed by defendant No. 13 for additional evidence, plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order. Defendant No. 13 alleged in her application that her counsel in the lower court Mr. Kuldeep Jain, Advocate had left the legal profession and had returned his license to the Bar Council since long and stopped appearing on behalf of defendant No. 13, without informing defendant No. 13, and therefore, she could not appear as her witness. Accordingly, defendant No. 13 prayed that she be allowed to produce her evidence.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner, while admitting that Mr. Kuldeep Jain, Advocate-representing defendant No. 13 in the trial court, had left legal practice, contended that application for additional evidence has been moved by defendant No. 13 to delay the decision of the suit, and therefore, the application should not have been allowed. The contention cannot be accepted. Defendant No. 13 was represented by a counsel, who however, left the legal profession, without allegedly informing her. In these circumstances, permission has been rightly granted by the trial court to defendant No. 13 to appear as her own witness, subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Contention of counsel for the petitioner, that defendants No. 13 and 14 have filed joint written statement and defendant No. 14 has already appeared as witness, does not help the petitioner because defendant No. 13 also has right to appear as her witness. However, defendant No. 13 has been subjected to costs of Rs. 500/- only, which is insufficient. The cost amount needs to be enhanced. It may be mentioned that defendants No. 13 and 14 are none else but sisters of plaintiff-petitioner. Impugned order of the trial court suffers from illegality to the extent of the amount of costs only.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to defendant No. 13 so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save defendant No. 13 of the financial burden she may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to her. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is disposed of by enhancing the cost amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/-, to be paid by defendant No. 13 to the plaintiff-petitioner for appearing as witness by additional evidence.