The petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order refusing to summon two important witnesses from a Public Sector Unit. The witnesses were crucial to proving the petitioner's case in a money suit filed regarding a jointly bid contract. The trial court closed the petitioner's evidence without summoning the witnesses. The petitioner argues this violates principles of natural justice and fair trial. The petitioner seeks an order quashing the trial court's decision and directing it to provide assistance to summon the important witnesses.
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order refusing to summon two important witnesses from a Public Sector Unit. The witnesses were crucial to proving the petitioner's case in a money suit filed regarding a jointly bid contract. The trial court closed the petitioner's evidence without summoning the witnesses. The petitioner argues this violates principles of natural justice and fair trial. The petitioner seeks an order quashing the trial court's decision and directing it to provide assistance to summon the important witnesses.
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order refusing to summon two important witnesses from a Public Sector Unit. The witnesses were crucial to proving the petitioner's case in a money suit filed regarding a jointly bid contract. The trial court closed the petitioner's evidence without summoning the witnesses. The petitioner argues this violates principles of natural justice and fair trial. The petitioner seeks an order quashing the trial court's decision and directing it to provide assistance to summon the important witnesses.
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order refusing to summon two important witnesses from a Public Sector Unit. The witnesses were crucial to proving the petitioner's case in a money suit filed regarding a jointly bid contract. The trial court closed the petitioner's evidence without summoning the witnesses. The petitioner argues this violates principles of natural justice and fair trial. The petitioner seeks an order quashing the trial court's decision and directing it to provide assistance to summon the important witnesses.
REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE, 1908 CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED ON _____IN THE CASE NO._____.
The Petitioner MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That, the instant Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 being aggrieved by the Order dated _______ passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, ______________, New Delhi in Civil Suit No. ________of 2019 seeking to set aside the same. The certified copy of the impugned order is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A1.
2. The Petitioner seeks the intervention of the Hon’ble Court as the subordinate court had refused to summon two important witnesses who were determinant to the case. Without the court intervention, and thereby issuing an Order of Summons, there is no way that they would appear and answer on Oath. The non-appearance of the witness would lead to grave injury caused to the Petitioner. Thus, this petition to direct the Subordinate Court to issue summons to the witness and thereby exercise the jurisdiction the court has.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The money suit was filed by the Petitioner on __________based on the contract entered into by the Plaintiff and the Defendant for jointly bidding a tender floated by the Public Sector Unit (PSU). It was agreed that the sale proceeds would be distributed equally to the bidders.
4. The parties secured the tender in their favour for Rs.5,00,000 and the amount was credited to the Defendants account. But, the value of the tender would least amount to Rs. 10,00,000.
5. The Defendant after receiving the sale proceeds informed the Plaintiff that he had accepted the tender for Rs. 5,00,000. When the Plaintiff enquired the Defendant as to why such low amounts were secured, the Defendant gave evasive response and never explained why such less amount was received, when clearly the value of movies is much higher. As per the terms and conditions of the contract half of the financial proceeds belong to the Plaintiff.
6. That the trial court framed issues on 19/01/2019 and directed the Petitioner to produce evidence, upon which the Petitioner promptly furnished to the court below four witnesses making a request that the witness should be summoned by that Court.
7. The Plaintiff listed 4 witnesses out of which there are 2 witnesses from the PSU.
8. The Judge refused to entertain such a request and directed the Plaintiff to secure the attendance of the 2 PSU witnesses on his own. 9. The Judge, after cross-examining the two other witnesses had passed an order to close the witness of the Plaintiff (order dated 15/07/2019).
10. Two witness of the petitioner had appeared and their statements were recorded. However, the learned Presiding Officer of the court below passed an order that the remaining witnesses be produced by the petitioner-plaintiff on his own without seeking the assistance of the court. This order was passed despite a request by the petitioner that at least those witnesses named in the list who are State employees should be summoned by the court, as they are required to produce and prove some official records.
GROUNDS:
i. That on the date of hearing the learned trial court by the order impugned in this revision closed the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff on the ground that the remaining witnesses were not produced by him.
ii. That the impugned order has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and if the same is allowed to stand the petitioner’s suit is bound to fail.
iii. The Judge has failed to exercise the powers granted to him under Order XVI, Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
iv. That the trial court has unjustifiably denied assistance of the court to the petitioner-plaintiff to secure the attendance of his witnesses. The interests of justice demand that he is provided with all legal assistance in this regard.
v. The purpose of summoning the two PSU witnesses has a great impact on the case. Only on them giving testimony can the rights of the parties be decided and the justice can be upheld and the real rights of the parties be decided.
vi. That it is violative of the principles of natural justice and fair trial. 11. The Plaintiff submits that all court fees have been paid.
12. The Plaintiff submits that there is no appeal in the High Court or any other Court subordinate to it.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances discussed above the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
1. Quash and set aside the order dated under revision.
2. Direct the court below to provide assistance of the court for summoning the plaintiff-witnesses.
Advocate VERIFICATION I, Rajani Sharo Sh. Kastoori lal R/o EA 159 Qazi Mohalla , Bazar Paprian, Jalandhar. do hereby verify that the contents of this Petition are true to my knowledge or belief.
Writ Petition Seeking Writ of Prohibition From High Court Under Article 226 of Constitution To Prohibit Respondents From Proceeding With Disciplinary Action
Writ Petition Seeking Writ of Prohibition From High Court Under Article 226 of Constitution To Prohibit Respondents From Proceeding With Disciplinary Action
