High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 10 P&H CK 0012

Vijay Kumar Puri vs Pal Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 October 2005

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Goel, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 239 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 172 words

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—I have perused the impugned order.

2.

The Petitioner accused raised a plea that the amount outstanding had been paid. A letter from Hon''ble Mr. Justice A.D. Kaushal, a former Judge of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in whose presence the payment was made was also produced. The same was sought to be proved by appointing commission. The trial Court rejected this prayer on the ground that the Petitioner has not raised this defence earlier.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed error of record and in any case, appointment of commission will only advance interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting this prayer.

4.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5.

The prayer for appointing a Commission was eminently just and reasonable.

6.

The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside,

7.

The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with.

Allowed.