Hardeep Singh vs Bakshish Singh And Others

JUDGMENTTAG-JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J

Prayer is for preponing the date of hearing and for disposal of the revision petition on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that respondent No. 1 is the only contesting respondent being plaintiff and other respondents are co-defendants with the present petitioner and therefore, they are not necessary parties to be served in the present revision petition.

Vide order dated 26.11.2019, notice of motion was issued for 04.03.2020 on the premise that at the time of acceptance of review application, one of the attesting witness namely Harbhajan Singh was alive and that is why, the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent of examination of Harbhajan Singh and Jatinder Bajaj. Harbhajan Singh has expired on 06.12.2017 and in view of that, necessity arose to examine son of second deceased attesting witness namely Swinder Singh who has already expired. Examination of son of Swinder Singh would be in terms of Section 69 of the Evidence Act. Trial Court was also directed to defer the proceedings till the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 1 states that the prayer is innocuous one to be accepted and he has no objection in case, the present revision petition is allowed only to the aforesaid extent.

In view of statement made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, date of hearing is preponed and main case is taken up today.

CR No. 7501 of 2019(O&M)

In view of concurrence given by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, son of second deceased attesting witness namely Swinder Singh is allowed to be examined by the petitioner in accordance with law.

The present revision petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.