Civil Revision No.4200 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4200 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:13.07.2011 Gursewak Singh ......Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jaspreet Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is, that a fight had taken place between the parties, in which the plaintiffs-complainant party sustained injuries on various parts of their body, even culminating in the death of Balwinder Kaur. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against the defendants-accused party, vide FIR No.42 dated 09.06.2004, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452, 326, 324, 323/34 IPC by the police of Police Station Mehna, District Moga. Gursewak Singh-petitioner and his brother Tarsem Singh-proforma respondent No.4- plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit against Darshan Singh and others-respondent Nos.1 to 3-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”) for recovery of compensation/damages on account of the death of Balwinder Kaur and injuries sustained by them, caused by the defendants. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiffs on 05.05.2011, on which date, the trial Court declined the prayer of adjournment of the counsel for the plaintiffs, closed their Civil Revision No.4200 of 2011(O&M) 2 evidence and adjourned the case for evidence of the defendants, by way of impugned order dated 05.05.2011(Annexure P-3). 3. Gursewak Singh-petitioner, one of the plaintiffs, did not feel satisfied with the impugned order(Annexure P-3) of the trial Court and preferred the present revision petition. 4. 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 revision petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect. 5. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in the interest of justice, 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. More so, they are detained in Jail at Moga. 6. As is evident from the record that, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiffs on 05.05.2011. The trial Court declined the request for adjournment of the counsel for the plaintiffs to produce the evidence and fixed the case for evidence of the defendants, by means of impugned order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P-3), which is, as under:- “No PW is present despite last opportunity. Another adjournment requested which is opposed. Perusal of the file shows that case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 20.1.2005 and since then, they have availed sufficient effective opportunities to adduce and to conclude their evidence, but no real efforts appear to have been made in this regard. The case is lingering on for the last five years. In these circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground for grant of another opportunity to the plaintiff and as such, request by their counsel is decline, but plaintiffs will be at liberty to tender documents, if any, in their evidence as per rules. Plaintiffs counsel tendered documents Ex.P6 to Ex.P13. Civil Revision No.4200 of 2011(O&M) 3 Adjourned to 3.6.2011 for evidence of the defendants.” 7. As is clear from the impugned order that the main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court in closing the evidence of the plaintiffs, is that the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs since 20.01.2005. Here, to me, the trial Court slipped into deep legal error in this respect. The perusal of the interim orders reproduced by the petitioner in the Grounds of Revision, would reveal that, having framed the issues, for the first time, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiffs on 23.04.2005 (not on 20.01.2005, as observed by the trial Court), by virtue of order dated 20.01.2005. On 04.08.2005, PW was present and was examined-in-chief, but the case was adjourned, as counsel for the defendants was not feeling well. On 06.10.2005, two PWs were examined-ini-chief, but again the case was adjourned, as the counsel for the defendants was out of station. 8. Not only that, thereafter an application for staying the proceedings was filed by the defendants, reply to which was filed on 27.04.2006 and ultimately, the application was dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2006. Then, the case was transferred to the other court, which is clear from the interim order dated 04.01.2007. On 19.04.2007, due to sad demise of former Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.L.Singhal of this Court, the lawyers suspended the work. On 19.11.2007, ex parte proceedings were ordered against the defendants. Then the case remained pending for setting aside the ex parte order. The ex parte proceedings were set aside by virtue of order dated 18.01.2008. On 10.04.2008, the case was again transferred to the other court. On 12.03.2009, despite service, two witnesses MHC P.S.Mehna and R.S.Sandhu, C.H., Moga, did not appear, so, they were summoned through bailable warrants. Again, the case was adjourned at the request of counsel for the defendants for 14.03.2009. 9. From the sequence of events, narrated hereinabove, it is apparent that the plaintiffs alone were not at fault, but the case was also adjourned at the request Civil Revision No.4200 of 2011(O&M) 4 of counsel for the defendants on various occasions, as depicted hereinabove. 10. Ex facie, it appears to be true that sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence. Be that as it may, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the factual position on record, as indicated hereinabove, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted adequate opportunity to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence, in the obtaining circumstances of the case, specially when they have already moved application (Annexure P-1) and process fee(Annexure P-2) for summoning the official witnesses. To my mind, if the opportunity to conclude the evidence of the plaintiffs, is not provided, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to them. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants, particularly when they can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. More so, when the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendants. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, the instant revision petition is hereby partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.05.2011(Annexure P-3) is set aside. The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the official witnesses and to provide two effective opportunities to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants in this relevant context. July 13, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4200 of 2011(O&M) 5