Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Ram Singh and others ......petitioners Versus Kulwinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate. for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. The respondents filed a civil suit for possession. Their suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs-respondents preferred an appeal. In appeal, vide the impugned order dated 5.6.2009, learned Additional District Judge directed the respondents to furnish particulars with regard to length and breadth of the boundaries of the property in dispute so that substantial justice could be done between Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the parties. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Appellate Court had erred in directing the plaintiffs to furnish length and breadth of the boundaries because the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed because they had failed to disclose the boundaries of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the boundaries of the property in dispute had been given by the plaintiffs but the measurement of the property could not be given. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned order has observed that the boundaries of the suit property had already been detailed in the plaint but the measurement of the boundaries, however, were not mentioned. The duty of the Court is to do substantial justice between the parties and in order to determine lis between the parties more effectively, the plaintiffs-respondents were directed to furnish the measurement of the property in dispute. In terms of the impugned order, the plaintiffs-respondents have already furnished the measurement of the property in dispute. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for possession basing their claim on the registered gift deed dated 2.6.1931 executed by Roop Devi in favour of Punjab Civil Revision No. 3819 of 2009 (O&M) 3 kaur. Mewa Singh deceased was son of Punjab Kaur. Mewa Singh died on 8.11.1998 and thereafter, the plaintiffs were owner in possession of the suit property. However, defendants took forcible possession of the suit property on 21.12.2000. Learned trial Court held that the gift deed executed by Roop Devi in favour of her daughter Punjab Kaur stood duly proved. However, it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get the possession of the suit property as they had failed to disclose the length and breadth of the property in dispute. The site plan, proved on record by the plaintiff did not depicts length and breadth of the property. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Additional District Judge, with a view to impart justice between the parties, has directed the plaintiffs-respondents to disclose the measurement of the property in dispute as the boundaries have already been disclosed by the plaintiffs-respondents in the plaint. Substantial justice has been done between the parties. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 10 , 2009 anita