Civil Revision No.5838 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5838 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.09.2011 Roop Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Tilak Raj and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Roop Kumar-petitioner-plaintiff No.1 and Kulwant Kumar-proforma respondent No.3-plaintiff No.2, sons of Sham Lal, (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Tilak Raj and Vikas Kumar sons of Resham Lal-respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants(for short “the defendants”), from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. 2. As the documentary evidence was not produced, despite many opportunities, therefore, the trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs, by way of impugned order dated 23.08.2011(Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 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 Civil Revision No.5838 of 2011 2 Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the 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 respect. 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 petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 6. As is clear 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 plaintiffs did not produce the documentary evidence, despite having availed many opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to plaintiff No.1, to produce the documentary evidence, subject to the payment of costs. The production of documentary evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. To me, if the opportunity is not granted, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the plaintiffs. Above all, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. More so, when 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 dated 23.08.2011(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiffs, to produce the documentary evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the Civil Revision No.5838 of 2011 3 plaintiff to the defendants. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the defendants. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. September 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5838 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23353-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5838 of 2011 Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE