IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. NO.1183 OF 2009 DATE OF ORDER: 4.3.2009 Babita and others ....Petitioner(s) Versus Roshan Lal and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Facts giving rise to the present revision petition, which has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are that one Tara Chand-husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 & 3 and son of petitioner No.4 respectively filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 20.11.1996. Issues were framed on 20.1.2003. Tara Chand-plaintiff appeared in the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit on 5.5.2005, however, his cross examination was deferred for 22.9.2005. It appears that on the subsequent date, his cross-examination could not be conducted. He, however, on 19.4.2006, along with his father Dhan Singh, was murdered and an FIR No.99 dated 19.4.2006 was lodged. Thereafter, the present petitioners made an application on 17.7.2006 for being impleaded as LRs of the said Tara Chand. The application was allowed on 5.10.2006. After leading the remaining evidence, the evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs was closed by court order on 5.4.2007. Thereafter, the evidence of the defendants was also closed on 28.2.2008 and when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, it came to the notice of the C.R. NO.1183 OF 2009 #2# petitioners in March 2008 that the evidence tendered by Tara Chand was not to be treated as admissible evidence as he had not been offered for cross- examination. In view of the same, petitioners-impleaded LRs of plaintiffs filed an application dated 27.3.2008 (Annexure P.1) for leading additional evidence in the shape of statement of petitioner No.1-widow of late Tara Chand and her cross-examination. Notice of the application was issued and the reply to the same was filed and after considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. It is not in doubt that the impleaded LRs of plaintiffs- petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to lead their evidence after being impleaded as LRs of Tara Chand-plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that the evidence of the plaintiffs wasclosed by court order on 5.4.2007 and thereafter the evidence of the defendants was closed on 28.2.2008 and the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. It also cannot be disputed that the LRs of plaintiff-Tara Chand are the poor and rustic widow, minor children and 80 years old mother. In my opinion, the reason given by the petitioners that on inspection of the file in March 2008, they came to know that Tara Chand had not been cross-examined and thus moved the aforesaid application for leading additional evidence, appears to be natural as it is quite possible that Tara Chand would not have disclosed this fact to them and it was for their counsel to be aware of the legal intricacies and advised the petitioners at the appropriate stage. It is quite settled that the approach of the Courts should be C.R. NO.1183 OF 2009 #3# towards final and substantial determination of disputes between the parties, rather than defeating them on hypertechnical grounds. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for not being able to lead evidence, now sought to be led. In view of the above, orders dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P.2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Palwal are set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner No.1-Babita to appear as additional witness and tender her statement and be cross-examined on a date to be fixed by it subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to be paid to the respondents-defendants in equal shares. Petition stands allowed. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondents as it would result in unnecessarily delay in the matter and expenses for the other party. In any case, respondents-defendants are being compensated by way of costs. March 04, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE