IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6643 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 10, 2008 Archaeological Survey of India and another ....Petitioners Versus M.G.F. Company and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Anil Rathee, Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3. T.P.S. MANN, J. Challenge in the revision is to the order passed by the trial Court on November 14, 2008 whereby evidence of the plaintiffs- petitioners was closed by order. While passing the impugned order, learned trial Court observed that as required by order dated 30.5.2008 of the High Court, three effective opportunities had already been given to the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence, which they had availed and, therefore, no case was made out for further adjourning the case for their evidence. The petitioners had earlier filed a revision petition in this Civil Revision No. 6643 of 2008 -2- regard wherein they had challenged the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. declining to stay the construction of the shopping mall-cum-multiplex- cum-hotel building. The said revision was allowed on 30.5.2008 and respondents No. 1 and 2 were restrained from raising any construction on the site in question during the pendency of the suit. However, while taking into consideration that respondents No. 1 and 2 had already spent a large sum of money, this Court also directed the trial Court to decide the suit positively within a period of six months from the next date of hearing by granting three effective opportunities to each party to lead its evidence and the parties were also directed not to delay the disposal of the suit. The concluding portion of the order dated 30.5.2008 is reproduced here- in-below:- “In view of what has been held herein above, the revision petition is allowed and the orders, dated 17.9.2007 and 20.12.2007 are set aside. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are restrained from raising any construction on the disputed site, during the pendency of the suit. However, taking into consideration that respondents No. 1 and 2 have spent a large sum of money the trial Court is directed to positively decide the suit, within a period of six months from the next date of hearing, by granting three effective opportunities to each party to lead evidence. The parties are directed not to delay the disposal of suit. No order as to costs” Civil Revision No. 6643 of 2008 -3- After the framing of the issues on 29.9.2008, trial Court ordered for summoning evidence of the plaintiffs for 17.10.2008. However, the matter was taken up by the Court on 16.10.2008 as the Presiding Officer was to proceed on leave on 17.10.2008 and the case was adjourned to 20.10.2008 for evidence of the plaintiffs. However, on 20.10.2008, no PW was present and on request made by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the case was adjourned to 30.10.2008. On the said date, PW1 was examined-in-chief. However, his cross-examination was deferred to 14.11.2008 on request made by learned counsel for the defendants, who needed more time to peruse the affidavit of PW1, which ran into 30 pages and was tendered in evidence in lieu of examination-in- chief. On 14.11.2008, PW1 was cross-examined. No other witness of the plaintiffs was present. The trial Court then proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiffs by order, instead of granting further adjournment to them for their remaining evidence. As is clear from above, three effective opportunities have not been availed of by the plaintiffs for examining their entire evidence. The first opportunity was to be availed by them on 17.10.2008, but as the learned trial Judge was to proceed on leave on the said date, the case was taken up a day earlier and adjourned to 20.10.2008. The stand of the plaintiffs is that the summons had already been issued by the trial Court for service of its witnesses for 17.10.2008 and as the case was adjourned a day before the said date for 20.10.2008, there was no chance of summoning the witnesses once again for 20.10.2008 after getting the Civil Revision No. 6643 of 2008 -4- process issued for their service. It was for that reason that no PW was present before the trial Court on 20.10.2008. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs availed first effective opportunity for examining their witnesses on 20.10.2008. Even on the adjourned date, i.e. 30.10.2008, Jasmer Singh was produced by the plaintiffs as PW1 and by way of his examination-in-chief, his affidavit was tendered. It was on a request made by learned counsel for the defendants that his cross- examination was deferred to 14.11.2008. In view of the above, it has to be held that so far the plaintiffs have not been able to avail of three effective opportunities for examining their entire evidence. Resultantly, this Court has no other option but to accept the present revision and while setting aside the impugned order closing the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners, granted one more effective opportunity to them to examine their entire evidence. The Court has been informed that after the closure of the plaintiffs' evidence, the defendants have already examined DW1 Rohit Gupta as their witness on 28.11.2008. In such a situation, the plaintiffs, who are entitled to one more effective opportunity for examining their remaining evidence can be restrained from demolishing the evidence of said Rohit Gupta DW1 by bringing any such evidence. The revision is, therefore, accepted, impugned order is set aside and the plaintiffs-petitioners are granted one last effective Civil Revision No. 6643 of 2008 -5- opportunity to examine their remaining evidence. As the case is now fixed before the trial Court for recording of further evidence of the defendants for 13.12.2008, the last opportunity granted to the plaintiffs for examining their remaining evidence be availed of by them within a week from the said date. It is also made clear that while examining their remaining evidence, the plaintiffs shall not make any effort to demolish the evidence of DW1 Rohit Gupta. In case, the plaintiffs require any assistance in summoning their witnesses, learned trial Court shall not hesitate in taking necessary steps in that directions, besides taking coercive measures for securing the presence of the witnesses of the plaintiffs. Once the witnesses of the plaintiffs appear before the learned trial Court, they be examined by the plaintiffs and cross-examined by the defendants on day to day basis, if need be. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 10, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO