Civil Revision No. 5957 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5957 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 5th , 2011 Surinder Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Harmeet Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Harindar Kumar Aurora, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This revision petition has been brought by defendant No.2 under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 24.7.2009 and 20.8.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby vide the first order, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and by way of the next order, her application under section 151 CPC for permission to adduce evidence on her behalf had been dismissed. Harmeet Kaur, plaintiff – respondent No.1, had brought this suit for declaration that she along with defendants No. 5 to 7 succeed to 1/5th share of the property left by Smt. Bachan Kaur and are also owners of some residential properties. She had also challenged the judgment and decree obtained by Surinder Kaur against Surinder Singh and Kulwant Kaur in a civil suit titled Civil Revision No. 5957 of 2011 2 .. Surinder Kaur Vs. Surinder Singh decided on 10.9.1998. Some other relief has also been sought in the suit. After the plaintiff concluded her evidence, the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants. Defendant No.1 led his evidence and closed the same on 24.7.2009. Request was made for adjournment of the case for evidence of defendant No.2. Noticing the fact that the plaintiff had closed her evidence on 13.9.2007 and thereafter the defendants have already availed several opportunities to conclude their evidence and defendant No.2 has failed to conclude her evidence, her evidence has been closed by order of the court, finding no justifiable reason for further adjournment of the case. Faced with this situation, defendant No.2 filed an application under section 151 CPC for permission to lead evidence and the said application has been dismissed vide order dated 20.8.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, defendant No.2 has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Harindar Kumar Aurora, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The order passed by learned trial court on 24.7.2009 could have not been successfully assailed if the defendants had community of interest and were represented by a common counsel. In that event, two defendants could not seek independent opportunity to lead their evidence. Here defendants No. 1 and 2 Civil Revision No. 5957 of 2011 3 .. are represented by different counsel and it is evident from record that they have clash of interest. When defendant No.1 was leading his evidence upto 24.7.2009, it was not expected of defendant No. 2 to lead her evidence simultaneously. It is only after defendant No.1 had concluded his evidence that defendant No.2 could be asked to bring her evidence. No opportunity, therefore, has been given by learned trial court to defendant no. 2 to lead her evidence. The order dated 24.7.2009 is, therefore, bad and for this very reason, the order dated 20.8.2011, whereby the application under section 151 CPC had been dismissed, is also bad. Under the provisions of section 151 CPC, the court has got the inherent power to serve the interest of justice. Under this provision, the court is to do what is right and to prevent the doing of what is wrong. Closing of the evidence of defendant No.2, while defendant No.1 was closing his evidence, is absolutely wrong. In these circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside. However, as prayed for, one clear opportunity shall be given to defendant No.2 to lead her evidence at her responsibility. Learned trial court is directed to give one clear opportunity to defendant No. 2 – petitioner to lead her evidence at her responsibility. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 5th, 2011 som