R.S.A. No. 21 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 21 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 18, 2011 Harpinder Singh and others …..Appellants Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiffs for possession of Khasra No. 1149 i.e. 0K 3 M mentioned in heading of the plaint has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to establish their case. Counsel for the plaintiff- appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs had already deposited the diet money for service of the witnesses R.S.A. No. 21 of 2010 (O&M) [2] on February 7, 2006. It is claimed that on account of fair opportunity having not been granted, the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed despite the fact that the defendant- respondents had not produced any evidence. The plea taken by the defendant- respondents in the written statement is that they have become owners on account of their possession over the property in dispute for a period of 20 years prior to the filing of the suit. Prima facie, it appears that plaintiffs who are admittedly owners of the property in dispute, the defendant- respondents having not been able to establish better possessory title over the same, the plaintiffs have been deprived the possession of their property on account of their negligence for having not produced evidence. The plea that they have not been given fair opportunity to produce their evidence was raised before the lower Appellate Court also. In order to finally adjudicate the rights of the parties and the claim of the plaintiff- appellants for the possession of the property in dispute, prima facie they can be permitted to produce evidence subject to payment of heavy costs. In the interest of justice the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are aside so that the parties may be given fair opportunity to produce their evidence so that the controversy regarding the ownership and title is settled once for all. The following question of law is involved in the case:- “Whether the plaintiffs can be deprived of the possession of the property prima facie owned by them without giving them fair opportunity to produce their evidence R.S.A. No. 21 of 2010 (O&M) [3] especially when claim of adverse possession raised by the defendant- respondents has not been substantiated by any evidence?” Taking into consideration the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the abovesaid law point has to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs. In peculiar circumstances of the case, since the plaintiffs and defendants both have failed to produce evidence, dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs on the said ground has resulted in denial of justice. In the interest of justice and taking into consideration the harassment suffered by the defendant- respondents, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.20000/-. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on July 30, 2011 on which date the plaintiffs will pay the cost of Rs.20000/- to the defendant- respondents. The trial Court will, thereafter give total four opportunities to the plaintiffs to be availed within a period of three months. Thereafter the defendant- respondents will be given opportunity to produce their evidence in accordance with law. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. May 18, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE