Civil Revision No.5753 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5753 of 2011 Date of Decision:26.09.2011 Khem Raj ......Petitioner Versus Gurdev Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The combination of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emitting from the record is that, Gurdev Kaur widow of Dev Raj and her sons-respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Khem Raj son of Darshan Ram-petitioner-defendant No.3 and proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5-defendant Nos.1 and 2(for short “the defendants”) from raising any sort of construction over the land in dispute. 2. As the defendants did not conclude the evidence and adjournment was declined, therefore, their evidence was closed by the trial Court, by way of impugned order dated 30.05.2011(Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant No.3 preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the plaintiffs, in Civil Revision No.5753 of 2011 2 order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. Be that as it may, but still they would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desire. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 6. As is evident from the impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence was that, the defendants did not conclude their evidence, having availed slew of opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but the bare perusal of the interim(zimni) orders reproduced in the Grounds of Revision would reveal that no adequate opportunities have been granted to the defendants to conclude their evidence and they alone cannot be blamed in this relevant behalf. Moreover, taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendants, to conclude their evidence, subject to the payment of costs. The production of evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. To me, if the opportunity to conclude the evidence is not granted, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the defendants. Above all, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiffs, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this context. More so, when the case is still fixed for rebuttal evidence. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.05.2011(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the Civil Revision No.5753 of 2011 3 defendants, to conclude their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by petitioner- defendant No.3 to the plaintiffs. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiffs. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. September 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5753 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23007-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5753 of 2011 Present: Mr.Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE