IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.8049 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 23, 2011 Smt. Phoolwati and others ….Petitioners Versus Smt. Mamta Rani ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to orders dated 05.12.2011 and 13.10.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat and Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panipat respectively, whereby the application of the defendants- petitioners for grant of ad interim injunction has been dismissed. Pursuant to sale deed dated 21.01.2010, respondent -Mamta is depicted to be in possession of the suit property. Both the Courts below have rightly declined the prayer of the defendant-petitioners and given the interim injunction in favour of respondent-Mamta, during the pendency of the civil suit. I do not find any legal infirmities in both the orders. Dismissed. 23.12.2011 (RITU BAHRI) vcgarg JUDGE to file the written statement. Challenge is to the order dated 5.9.2011 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. In the present case, the suit was instituted on 23.5.2010 and issues were framed on 16.11.2010. On 28.4.2011 statements of plaintiff and four witnesses namely, Rajbala, Hari Chand, Ishwar and Krishan were recorded. PW1 Rajbala was cross-examined on 9.6.2011. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Precise grievance of the petitioner is that one of C.R. No. 7454 of 2011 [ 2 ] the witnesses Ishwar, after cross-examined, died on 9.11.2011. The other two witnesses Hari Chand, brother of Ishwar, and Krishan son of Ishwar, could not be crossexamined. In the interest of justice, the order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P-11) is set aside. One opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to cross-examine Hari Chand and Krishan subject to payment of `2,000/- as costs. Civil Revision is allowed. Challenge is to the order dated 13.06.2011 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff-Sunita has been closed on the ground that there was no compromise effected between the parties. Perusal of order dated 13.06.2011, reveals that the Court had granted last opportunity to effect the compromise and one PW was examined on 13.06.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute is regarding the common passage falling between the land of the plaintiff and the respondent. He further contends that plaintiff/petitioner wants to examine herself as a sole witness. The case is pending adjudication since 2007, in the interest of justice one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to examine herself as witness. Civil Revision No. 7467 of 2011 -2- In view of the above, the order dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-4) is set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to examine herself, subject to payment of `2,000/- as costs. Civil Revision is allowed No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order, as concededly these issues have come up after the filing of divorce petition in May 2009. While allowing the proposed amendment the present petitioner-wife will be at liberty to lead her evidence in defence. Civil Revision is dismissed. Civil Revision is allowed. Order dated 29.11.2011 is set aside and a direction is given to the trial court to give an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to enable him to conclude his evidence subject to payment of `5,000/- as costs. Summons for two official witnesses be also issued. On 8.1.2012, no further opportunity is required to be given for leading evidence. If plaintiff-respondent has any objection to this order, he is at liberty to approach this Court. 6.12.2011 ( ( 23.12.2011 (RITU BAHRI) vcgarg JUDGE