Civil Revision No.5674 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5674 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Smt.Seema and another ......Petitioners Versus Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that Smt.Seema Singhal wife of Sohan Lal Singhal and Smt.Anita wife of Rajesh Kumar-petitioner-plaintiffs(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against Sub-Registrar-cum-Tehsildar, Assandh and others-respondent-defendants(for short “the defendants”) with respect to the land in dispute. 2. Having framed the relevant issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiffs. Since, the plaintiffs did not conclude the evidence, despite availing four opportunities, so, the trial Court closed their evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.08.2011 (Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiffs preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No.5674 of 2011 2 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 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 context. Be that as it may, but still they would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desire. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs, going through the record with his valuable assistance 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 impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence of the plaintiffs was that, they did not conclude the evidence, despite having availed four opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the fact that the plaintiffs are ladies, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to them, to conclude the evidence, subject to payment of costs. The 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 plaintiffs, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to private respondent-defendant Nos.2 to 4, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. Above all, the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendants. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiffs, to conclude their Civil Revision No.5674 of 2011 3 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 defendant Nos.2 to 4. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to defendant Nos.2 to 4. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5674 of 2011 4 C.M.No.22614-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5674 of 2011 Present: Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5674 of 2011 5