In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5200 of 2009 Date of Decision:September 11, 2009 Swaran Singh ---Petitioner versus Tarlochan Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Surinder Garg,Advocate, for the petitioner. *** SABINA J. Petitioner – Swaran Singh has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 5.8.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moga. Petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.11.2003. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. After completion of pleadings issues were framed and the case was listed for plaintiff's evidence. Vide the impugned order, evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by order. Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the issues were framed on 18.7.2007 yet during the intervening period i.e. before the passing of the impugned order, the case had also been adjourned as efforts regarding the settlement of the dispute were going on between Civil Revision No. 5200 of 2009 -2- the parties. On some occasions witnesses of the plaintiff were present but counsel for the defendants sought adjournment to cross examine the witnesses. Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioner be allowed only one opportunity to lead his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. Now the next dated fixed before the trial court is 16.9.2009 and on the said date, petitioner will lead his entire evidence. A perusal of the interim orders reproduced in the file reveals that examination-in-chief of two witnesses of the petitioner were concluded on 2.11.2007 and thereafter the case was adjourned for their cross examination at the request of counsel for the defendants. On the adjourned date, the witnesses who were to be cross examined, could not appear. Thereafter on two dates, the witnesses were present but their cross examination could not be completed as the counsel for the defendants requested for an adjournment. Thereafter on three occasions, the case was adjourned as there was chances of compromise between the parties. The case was also put up before the Pre Lok Adalat for effecting settlement between the parties, however, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Thereafter the cross examination of two witnesses was completed on 15.5.2009 and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner for 5.8.2009. On the said date no evidence of the petitioner was present and his evidence was closed by order. In case one opportunity is allowed to the petitioner to conclude his evidence, the list between the parties would be decided on merit and the other side can be compensated with costs. When substantial Civil Revision No. 5200 of 2009 -3- justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that affidavits of the witnesses sought to be examined were already on record. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is allowed to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility on the adjourned date before the trial court i.e. 16.9.2009 subject to payment of Rs. 2500/- as costs. Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed further with the case in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE September 11, 2009 PARAMJIT