C. R. 2711 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. 2711 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 13, 2010 Tej Kaur and others .... Petitioners Vs. Balwinder Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 16920-C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and zimni orders of the trial court (Annexure P-2) (Colly.) are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Defendants have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, thereby closing evidence of the defendants by court order. Mr. S. S. Swaich, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of C. R. 2711 of 2010 (O&M) 2 respondents-plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for their evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. The prayer has been vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents submitting that the petitioners are intentionally delaying the decision of the suit. In this respect, it has been pointed out that the petitioners failed to cross-examine the witnesses of respondents in the trial court in spite of many opportunities and therefore, cross-examination was treated as `Nil', but in revision petition, this Court showed indulgence and permitted the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost. It is further pointed out that defendants/petitioners have been granted 6-7 effective opportunities for their evidence, but no evidence whatsoever has been led by them except one witness and their sole purpose is to delay the decision of the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell their suit land on the allegations that the plaintiffs paid Rs.35,65,000/- as earnest money to the defendants and thus, the defendants are retaining the said huge amount of earnest money as well as possession of the suit land and irreparable loss is being suffered by the plaintiffs on account of delay in the disposal of the suit. It was contended that intention of the defendants to delay the suit is further clear from the fact that even the instant revision petition was C. R. 2711 of 2010 (O&M) 3 preferred almost five months after the passing of the impugned order. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. From the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents, it is manifest that the sole purpose of the petitioners/defendants is to delay the disposal of the suit because the defendants are enjoying possession of the suit land and have also allegedly received huge earnest money mentioned above. There is no explanation for the aforesaid conduct of the defendants in delaying the disposal of the suit at every stage. However, nevertheless, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if only one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners for leading their remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of exemplary cost as condition precedent. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioners to lead their remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost precedent. The cost amount shall be paid through bank draft payable to the plaintiffs themselves. The defendants shall lead their evidence in the trial court on the next date of hearing, which is already fixed in the trial court and no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners for this purpose. The petitioners shall also pay the cost amount by bank draft on the said date in the trial court. The petitioners may take assistance of the Court to summon evidence, but not more than one C. R. 2711 of 2010 (O&M) 4 opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners even on the ground of non- service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness in spite of service or on any other ground, whatsoever. July 13, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE