C.R. No. 738 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 738 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 11, 2011 Parvinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Navpreet Kaur …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Maninder Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is a resident of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. He has filed a suit for recovery of ` 5 lacs as damages claiming that defendant- respondent wife had entered into an agreement with him on August 1, 2008 agreeing that marriage will be dissolved by mutual consent on payment of `3.50 lacs towards all claims and alimony to the defendant- respondent. A sum of ` 1.75 lacs as 50% of the said amount was allegedly paid by bank draft dated August 1, 2008. Remaining amount, as per the agreement was to C.R. No. 738 of 2011 (O&M) [2] be paid on dissolution of marriage. The parties were required to file a divorce petition by mutual consent but the defendant- respondent had allegedly dishonoured the commitment and filed a separate petition for divorce seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of cruelty which was ultimately decreed ex-parte on the ground of cruelty. The grievance of the plaintiff- petitioner is that it had been agreed that whosoever violates the terms of the agreement would be liable to pay damages of ` 5 lacs. Claiming rights on the basis of such agreement, the plaintiff has filed a suit for damages. Vide impugned order, the evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner has been closed by order. The petitioner had filed a petition against the same order through his attorney but finding that his attorney did not have any power to file this revision petition, the revision petition was dismissed. This is second revision petition against same order filed by the petitioner himself. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has now arrived in India on January 10, 2011 as is apparent from the entry in his passport. It is argued that one Vijay Raina who was the attesting witness to the agreement was ready with his affidavit on July 23, 2010 on which date the Presiding Officer was not available, having gone for training at Judicial Academy, Bhopal. In order to substantiate the argument, a photocopy of the affidavit of PW Vijay Raina has been shown in the Court and placed on record as annexure P-3. C.R. No. 738 of 2011 (O&M) [3] Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has indulged in a luxury litigation with a mere objective to harass the respondent. Since it is claimed that a fair opportunity has not been granted to produce the evidence before closing the same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition in limine simultaneously protecting the right of the defendant- respondent to claim cost for the unnecessary harassment. This petition is disposed of with a direction that one opportunity will be granted to the plaintiff- petitioner to produce Vijay Raina on April 1, 2011 at his own responsibility subject to payment of cost of ` 25,000/-. It is made clear that in case Vijay Raina is not produced in the Court concerned on April 1, 2011 and a sum of ` 25000/- is not offered as cost, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. It is also observed here that in case for any reason the Court is not able to examine the witness Vijay Raina on April 1, 2011, the said Court will adjourn the case for examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Vijay Raina for a date to be fixed as per the convenience of the Court but not beyond 15 days after April 1, 2011. The order dated October 26, 2010 is hereby set aside subject to the above said conditions. The petition has been disposed of in limine to save the defendant- respondent from unnecessary expenditure of appearing in this Court and contesting the petition. February 11, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE