Regular Second Appeal No.602 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No.602 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.12.2011 Ram Chander ....Appellant Vs. Smt. Bohti and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate, for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) The Additional District Judge, Kaithal, had dismissed the appeal preferred by defendant No.3-appellant (herein referred as the 'defendant') against the judgment & decree dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (herein referred as the 'plaintiffs') for compensation of Rs.50,000/- against defendant Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, when confronted with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the defendant regarding absence of any evidence to prove the murder of Dalel Singh, he has pleaded that the plaintiffs were in the wrong impression that the judgment passed by the Criminal Court was Regular Second Appeal No.602 of 2009 (O&M) 2 conclusive for awarding compensation, therefore, the counsel in the trial Court, under this wrong impression, ill advised the plaintiff. The circumstances of the case also, so indicative. Thus, he has prayed that the case needs to be remitted back to the trial Court for permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence to prove his case. Heard. No doubt, there was a murder case, out of which, suit for damages had arisen. The plaintiff had led evidence during trial. But in this civil suit, the plaintiff, after tendering some documents, closed his evidence. Mere tendering of a judgment of conviction, passed by the Criminal Court, is not sufficient to hold the defendants liable for damages. The plaintiff has to prove the wrongful act on the part of the defendants by leading evidence. No evidence appears to have been led, obviously, due to the inadvertence of the counsel for the plaintiffs. The meritorious claim raised by a party should not be allowed to be vanished due to the fault on the part of the counsel and the expedience desires that they should be given adequate opportunity to lead evidence. As such, the appeal is accepted; both the judgments passed by the Courts below are set aside and the case is remitted back to the trial Court to decide the same afresh, after providing sufficient opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. (A.N.JINDAL) December 13, 2011 JUDGE ajp