Civil Revision No.5914 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5914 of 2011 Date of Decision:26.09.2011 Kulbir Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Jaswant Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Jaswant Singh son of Daulat Singh- respondent-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Kulbir Kaur widow of Late Charanjit Singh-petitioner-defendant(for short “the defendant”) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.05.2006 in respect to the house in question. 2. As the defendant filed the application, for summoning the witnesses late and did not conclude the evidence, therefore, her evidence was closed by the trial Court, by means of impugned order dated 14.09.2011(Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 the plaintiff, in Civil Revision No.5914 of 2011 2 order to save him from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when he can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. Be that as it may, but still he would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desires. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect. 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 was that, the defendant filed the application, for summoning the witnesses late and did not conclude her evidence, despite adequate opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but the bare perusal of the interim(zimni) orders reproduced in the Grounds of Revision would reveal that no adequate opportunities have been granted to the defendant to conclude her evidence and she alone cannot be blamed in this context. Moreover, taking into consideration the nature of litigation, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted opportunity to the defendant, to conclude her evidence, subject to the 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 defendant, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to her case. In this manner, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff, particularly when, he can be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.09.2011(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide two effective opportunities Civil Revision No.5914 of 2011 3 to the defendant, to conclude her evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. September 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5914 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23477-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5914 of 2011 Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE