Civil Revision No.5269 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5269 of 2011 Date of Decision:01.09.2011 Sakattar Singh ......Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Parampal Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Sakattar Singh son of Gurmel Singh- petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Mohinder Singh and others-respondent-defendants(for short “the defendants”) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.01.2005. 2. Ultimately, the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff did not conclude the evidence, despite many opportunities, including the last opportunity, so, the trial Court closed his evidence, by means of impugned order dated 10.08.2011(Annexure P-2). 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-2) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff 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 Civil Revision No.5269 of 2011 2 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 well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect. 6. As indicated earlier, it is clear that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence of the plaintiff was that, sufficient opportunities including the last opportunity have already been granted to him, but he failed to conclude the evidence. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff, to conclude his evidence in this relevant behalf, subject to costs. The production of evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. To me, if the opportunity is not granted to the plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-defendants, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this context. More so, when the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendants. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, 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 plaintiff, to conclude his evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-plaintiff to the respondent- defendants. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of Civil Revision No.5269 of 2011 3 costs personally to the defendants. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. September 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5269 of 2011 4 C.M.No.21109-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5269 of 2011 Present: Mr.Parampal Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE