Civil Revision No.4506 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4506 of 2011 Date of Decision:27.07.2011 Vikas and others ......Petitioners Versus Rajinder Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emitting from the record is, that Vikas son of Vijender Singh and others-petitioner-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 01.08.2000 against Rajinder Singh and others-respondent-defendants(for brevity “the defendants) in respect of the land in dispute. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. Having framed the essential issues, in the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court slated the case for evidence of the plaintiffs. Many opportunities were stated to have been granted to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence by the trial Court, but they failed to do so. Ultimately, the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by the trial Court, by means of impugned order dated 28.04.2011, which is as under:- “Documents tendered cost paid. No PW present. Several opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiff to conclude its evidence but he has failed to conclude the same. Hence, I find no justification to adjourn the case for the same purpose. Hence, evidence of plaintiff is hereby closed Civil Revision No.4506 of 2011 2 by Court order. Now to come up on 21.5.2011 for DWs. PE, DM, if any filed within 7 days otherwise, DWs be brought at own responsibility.” 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the petitioner- plaintiffs 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 respondent- defendants, in 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 be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present revision petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendants in respect of the land in dispute. As is clear, that the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court in closing the evidence of the plaintiffs was, that several opportunities were granted to them to conclude the evidence, but they failed to do so. 7. Ex facie, it appears to be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the fact that, the plaintiffs have already tendered the documents and they are not going to be benefited, in any manner, in delaying their own suit, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted last opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence. The production of evidence by the plaintiffs is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. Therefore, the trial Court has committed the material, procedural irregularity & illegality and the impugned order cannot be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. To me, if the opportunity is not granted to the Civil Revision No.4506 of 2011 3 plaintiffs, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-defendants in this regard, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. More so, when the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendants. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the defendants. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the suit. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. July 27, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE