AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
.
Sandeep Sharma, J
By way of instant petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made by the petitioner for extension of time granted by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2023, for recording the evidence in CR No. 172 of 2022.
Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He states that though delay in recording the evidence has occurred on account of fault of the petitioner, but even then, respondent has no objection in case fresh date is given for doing the needful.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that vide order dated 5.1.2023, passed in CR No. 172 of 2022, this Court directed the Local Commissioner Sh. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses namely Smt. Parmjeet Kaur and Sh. Baldev Singh at PS Model Town Ludhiana City, Punjab on 11.2.2023, however fact remains that aforesaid order could not be complied with on account of absence of counsel representing the petitioner, who telephonically informed the learned counsel for the respondent that on 11.2.2023, he can not come present on account of personal difficulty. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, who has been appointed as Local Commissioner, though was ready to go to Ludhiana, but he was also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he shall not be available on that day. In the aforesaid background, instant proceedings came to be filed for extension of time.
In view of the above, present petition is allowed and parties to the lis are directed to do the needful in terms of order dated 5.1.2023, passed in CR No. 172 of 2022 on 24.6.2023. Parties alongwith their counsel are directed to remain present before Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana City (Punjab), for examination/cross-examination of the witness namely Smt. Parmjeet Kaur and Sh. Baldev Singh. SHO Model Town, Ludhiana, is directed to render all assistance to the local Commissioner for recording the statements of aforesaid witnesses. Needless to say, SHO concerned would ensure that no threat, if any, is extended to the petitioner by the respondent while statements of the plaintiff witnesses are recorded by the Local Commissioner. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.