Civil Revision No.3999 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3999 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Elvina Malik ......Petitioner Versus Smt.Sarabjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux 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, Smt.Sarabjit Kaur wife of Kewal Singh- respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit(Annexure P/1) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Elvina Malik-petitioner-defendant No.7, Mr.Stanley Dharam Chand and others-proforma respondent Nos.2 to 9- defendant Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 10(for short “the defendants”), from forcibly dispossessing her and from alienating the suit property, in any manner. 2. The defendant No.7 contested the suit, filed the written statement (Annexure P/2) and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication(Annexure P/3). 3. Having closed the evidence of the plaintiff on 01.11.2010, the trial Court slated the case for evidence of the defendants. Thereafter, as the defendants did not conclude the evidence, despite adequate opportunities, therefore, their evidence was closed by the trial Court, by means of impugned order dated Civil Revision No.3999 of 2011 2 20.05.2011(Annexure P-6). 4. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-6) of the trial Court, petitioner-defendant No.7 preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Notice was issued to the respondents, but the contesting respondent No.1-plaintiff could not be served, as she is not residing at the given address. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whereabouts of respondent No.1-plaintiff, are not ascertainable and showed his inability to furnish her correct address. Therefore, in this view of the matter, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to respondent No.1-plaintiff, in order to save her from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when she can well be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. Be that as it may, but still she would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desires. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.7, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence was that, the defendants have failed to conclude their evidence, despite many opportunities. 8. Ex facie, it may be true, but the perusal of the record would reveal that, respondent-defendant Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 10 are residing in different foreign countries. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the fact that the defendants are residing in different foreign countries, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to them, to conclude their evidence, subject to payment of costs, instead of straightway jumping to close their evidence. The Civil Revision No.3999 of 2011 3 production of evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. If the opportunity to conclude the evidence is not granted to the defendants, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to respondent No.1-plaintiff, particularly when, she can be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside to the extent and in respect of closing the evidence of the defendants. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the defendants, 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 defendants to respondent No.1-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. 10. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would independently decide the application under Order 18 Rule 4(3) read with Section 151 CPC, for recording the evidence through Video conferencing filed by the defendants, in accordance with law. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.3999 of 2011 4 C.M.No.15810-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.3999 of 2011 Present: Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE