Civil Revision No.4919 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4919 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.08.2011 Siri Chand ......Petitioner Versus Smt.Bachni Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The combination of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emitting from the record is, that Siri Chand son of Durga Dass-petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit(Annexure P-1) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Smt.Bachni and others- respondent-defendants(for short “the defendants”) from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the property in dispute. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statement(Annexure P-2) and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the case was slated for arguments. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application (Annexure P-7), for permission to lead rebuttal evidence, on the issues, onus of which was upon the defendants. The respondent-defendants refuted the prayer of the plaintiff and filed the reply(Annexure P-8). The trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned order dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure P-9). Civil Revision No.4919 of 2011 2 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-9) 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 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 be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 6. As is evident from the record that, in the wake of pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP b) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action?OPD c) Relief.” 7. Meaning thereby, the burden of proof, to prove issue No.2 was on the defendants and in that eventuality, the plaintiff was entitled to lead rebuttal evidence to that limited extent. Thus, the trial Court committed a legal mistake and procedural irregularity, in denying him(plaintiff) an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence in this relevant connection. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-defendants, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant context. More so, when the case is still fixed for arguments. 8. 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 Civil Revision No.4919 of 2011 3 trial of the suit, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude his entire evidence in rebuttal. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of 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. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4919 of 2011 4 C.M.No.19654-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.4919 of 2011 Present: Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE