CR No.7847 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7847 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.3.2011 Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt ...Petitioner Versus Iqbal Chand Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.YK Sharma, Advocate for the respondent *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge/ Wakf Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that no evidence was led by the petitioner-plaintiff after closing its evidence by court order and also dismissed the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for recalling the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgment/decree and order passed by learned Additional District Judge / Wakf Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision CR No.7847 of 2009 2 petition are that suit for possession of property duly described in the heading of the plaint was filed by petitioner-plaintiff- Haryana Wakf Board against respondent-defendant on the ground that petitioner-plaintiff is owner of the same and that the respondent-defendant is in unauthorised possession of the said property belonging to the the plaintiff-petitioner. Suit was contested by the respondent-defendant. Issues were framed by learned Wakf Tribunal on 27.1.2009. Case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner on 22.4.2009, 8.6.2009 and then for 23.9.2009 when the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed and the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that no evidence was adduced. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that only one official witness i.e. concerned Estate Officer of the Board is to be examined. He further contended that though the then Estate Officer of the petitioner-plaintiff had appeared before the Wakf Tribunal on 8.6.2009 and however, he could not be examined as he was not feeling well. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- defendant has contended that valuable right has accrued to the respondent- defendant as the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed. It is further contended that no reason has been given as to why no evidence was adduced when three opportunities were granted to the petitioner-plaintiff by learned Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it is contended that the impugned judgment / decree and order cannot be set aside. Perusal of various zimni orders passed by learned Wakf CR No.7847 of 2009 3 Tribunal shows that though three opportunities were granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce the evidence, however, on one date official witness of the petitioner-plaintiff was present and however, he could not be examined as he was not feeling well. The suit has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff- Haryana Wakf Board for possession of the property in dispute on the ground that respondent-plaintiff was in unauthorised possession of the same. The suit has been dismissed by learned Wakf Board merely on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the petitioner- plaintiff. Though officials of the petitioner-plaintiff were negligent in pursuing the case before learned Wakf Tribunal, however, in view of the fact that official of the petitioner-Wakf Board had come present on one date and however, he could not be examined as he was not feeling well, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce the evidence and the respondent-defendant can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and while setting aside the impugned judgment/decree and order passed by learned Wakf Tribunal, it is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce the evidence. However, the petitioner-plaintiff is burdened with cost of ` 10,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. Parties are directed to appear before learned Additional District Judge/Wakf Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri through their respective counsel on 27.4.2011 for further proceedings in accordance with law. March 23, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE