Civil Revision No. 7636 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7636 of 2011 Date of decision. 09.12.2011 Chiman Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Resham Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Chiman Singh and others, some of the defendants have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, vide which the evidence of the petitioners-defendants had been closed by order of the court. Resham Singh and others, the respondents-plaintiffs had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that they alongwith defendant no.4 were in cultivating possession of the land to the extent of 1/5th share each in the land measuring 50 kanals at village Hasta Kalan having inherited the same from their father Arjan Singh. They have also sought the relief of mandatory injunction directing the official respondents to correct the revenue record in respect of the suit land in their favour. The said suit was contested by the non-official defendants. Civil Revision No. 7636 of 2011 --2-- In the said suit, the plaintiffs led their evidence and it was fixed for 07.11.2011 for evidence of the non-official defendants. It was last opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence. As no evidence was brought by the defendants on that date, learned trial court closed the evidence of the defendants for the reason that they had already availed four effective opportunities and the suit was one of the old cases category. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Narang, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plaintiffs had closed their evidence on 18.08.2011 only and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants. According to him, on 09.09.2011, Jagtar Singh, defendant no.6 had appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 07.10.2011. He has further submitted that on 07.10.2011, the defendants did not bring any evidence and the case was adjourned to 07.11.2011. He has also submitted that here the counsel for the defendants committed a mistake by noting down 21.11.2011 as the next date instead of 07.11.2011 and therefore the defendants or their counsel did not appear on 07.11.2011. He has submitted that the lapse on the part of the defendants of not bringing the evidence on 07.11.2011 was therefore due to bonafide mistake. He has prayed for grant of one opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence and has prayed for issuance of dasti summons of official witness. It is a case where the plaintiffs took very long time in completing their evidence and the time given to the defendants to Civil Revision No. 7636 of 2011 --3-- complete their evidence was short . Despite it, the defendants could not be expected to have been complacent in bringing their evidence. They did not bring any evidence on the previous date also. There is moreover nothing on the record to show that the evidence was not brought due to any mistake of date. However, keeping in view the fact that the defendants have been given a very short time to complete their evidence, the impugned order does not seem to be justified. There is a duty cast on the court of civil judge to expeditiously decide the civil litigation, but the same is not to be achieved at the cost of justice. The same has to be done by allowing adequate opportunity to each party to lead their evidence and then the case has to be decided on merits. In these circumstances, the impugned order closing the evidence of the defendants does not seem to be legal. The revision petition is,therefore, allowed, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one clear and effective opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence, for which dasti summons of any witness, desired to be summoned, may also be given to them. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 09.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh