Civil Revision No.5861 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5861 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.09.2011 Ravinder Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Karam Chand and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vipul Dharmani, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Karam Chand son of Bhagat Ram- respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Ravinder Kumar son of Gian Chand-petitioner-defendant No.3, Parsini Devi widow of Gian Chand and others-proforma respondents-defendants(for short “the defendants”) for a decree of declaration to the effect that he(plaintiff) is the joint owner/co-sharer and in possession, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the property in dispute. 2. As the documentary evidence was not produced, despite grant of various opportunities, therefore, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants, by virtue of impugned order dated 12.03.2011(Annexure P-4). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-4) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant No.3 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.5861 of 2011 2 Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the plaintiff, in order to save him from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when he can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, but still he would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desires. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 6. As is evident from the impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence was that, the defendants did not produce the documentary evidence, despite having availed various opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but the bare perusal of the interim(zimni) orders reproduced in the Grounds of Revision would reveal that the defendants alone cannot be blamed in this relevant connection. Moreover, taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to defendant No.3, to produce the documentary evidence, subject to the payment of costs. The production of documentary 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, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of defendant No.3. Above all, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff, particularly when, he can be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. More so, when the case is still fixed for rebuttal evidence. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.03.2011(Annexure P-4) is Civil Revision No.5861 of 2011 3 hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the defendants, to produce the documentary evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by defendant No.3 to the plaintiff. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. September 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5861 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23377-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5861 of 2011 Present: Mr.Vipul Dharmani, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE