CR No. 7058 of 2011 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7058 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.11.2011 Smt.Kanta Rani @ Kanta Chanden ...Petitioner Vs. Radhae Lal @ Radhae Shyam & Ors. .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by summoning the file in question, defendant No.3 wanted to confront the plaintiff with the plaint filed by him in Suit No.151 of 22.12.1980 decided on 3.4.1981 titled 'Chander Vs. Hariya' and also a compromise filed in that suit. Trial court has dismissed the application dated 17.11.2010 on 1.11.2011 with the following observation: “ xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx In our case defendant No.3 wants to summon file in which plaintiff has admitted certain things but these CR No. 7058 of 2011 3 documents can be produced by the defendant No.3 at a relevant point of time i.e. when the opportunity for leading evidence would be given to him. Therefore, at this stage, file cannot be summoned.” From the above extract of the order, it can not be inferred that the court wanted the defendant No.3 to put the plaint as well as the compromise to the plaintiff at the time of cross- examination and if he denies the same then file could be summoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another contention that no two contradictory orders could be passed on one application as earlier also on this very application dated 17.11.2010 the court had passed the following order:- “ One PW is present and examined in part. His further cross examination is deferred as an application for summoning file in case titled 'Chander Vs. Haria' Suit No.151 dated 3.4.1981 has been moved contending therein that the said file is necessary for further cross- examination of the witness. So the above said file be summoned from the record room. Now the case is adjourned to 16.2.2011 for cross-examination of deferred witnesses namely Radhae Lal as PW 1 as well as for remaining evidence of the plaintiff at his own responsibility. It shall be the last opportunity for cross- examination of deferred witness namely Radhae Lal as PW 1.” CR No. 7058 of 2011 3 It appears that the court neither sensitised the issue nor has the judicious approach. Had it taken little pains to open the file, this situation would not have arisen. Such orders passed by the courts reflect the conduct of the judicial officer and multiply the litigation. The application once dealt with and disposed off could not be taken again for passing a contradictory order. Under the circumstances, the petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the court is directed to re-examine the matter and pass the appropriate order afresh. I leave it to the trial court as to how she applies her mind. Copy of the order be placed before the Administrative Judge, Faridabad Division for perusal. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied the respondents may move to this court for recalling this order. (A.N.Jindal) 17.11.2011 Judge rp