C.R.No.4172 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4172 of 2008 Date of Decision 23.11.2009 Uttar Pradesh Steels ........ Petitioner Versus M/s Crompton Greeves Limited and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr.Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Jatinder J.C.Nagpal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial court in respect of the mode of proof of Ex.D-13, that is minutes of meeting dated 16.2.2002. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that Ex.D-13, the minutes of the meeting dated 16.2.2002, signed by Atul Kumar, Manager Accounts of the plaintiff and Anil Goel, Assistant Officer of the defendant has been produced by the defendant. The witness has identified the signatures of Atul Kumar on such minutes. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has accepted the objection regarding the mode of proof only with words “objection sustained”. It is further contended that such orders passed by the learned trial court without giving any reason, affects the right of the defendant to prove the aforesaid document. C.R.No.4172 of 2008 -2- Whether the document Ex.D-13, is proved or not could not be decided by the trial court only with the words “objection sustained”. The learned trial court should have given reasons for upholding its object in respect of the mode of proof of the document. Prima facie the argument given by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to untenable. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 25.4.2008, holding that the document Ex.D-13 is not proved suffers from patent illegality or irregularity. Therefore, the order regarding the mode of proof of the document is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter including to decided the question of the mode of proof in accordance with law. If the Court finds, that such document has not been proved, it is open to the trial court to pass another order by giving reasons for returning a finding that the document is not proved in accordance with law. With a said direction the present revision petition stands disposed of. November 23, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) rishu JUDGE