Civil Revision No. 3078 of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 3078 of 2006 Date of decision: 20.03.2009. Nihal Chand Gupta ....Petitioner Versus Jat Maha Sabha and others ...Respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 4788 of 2006 Shanti Lal @ Shanti Parkash and another ....Petitioners Versus Nagar Parishad, Narnaul and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain,Advocate, for the petitioner in Civil Revision No.3978 of 2006. Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for respondent no.1 in Civil Revision No.3978 of 2006. Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for Mr.Arun Jain, Advocate for the petitioners in Civil Revision No.4788 of 2006 Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for respondent no.4 in Civil Revision No.4788 of 2006. Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Additional Advocate General, Haryana in both the petitions. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. There are two litigations pending between the parties to these Civil Revision No. 3078 of 2006 -2- **** two petitions (Civil Revision Nos.3078 of 2006 and 4788 of 2006). One litigation titled Shanti Lal @ Shanti Parkash and another Vs. Nagar Parishad, Narunal is fixed before the learned Trial Court for recording of evidence of the plaintiffs therein for 20.4.2009. The other litigation titled Nihal Chand Gupta Vs. Jat Maha Sabha and others is fixed, for that very purpose, for 20.7.2009. In the former litigation, the plaintiffs therein have availed of 5-6 opportunities for adducing their evidence; while in the latter litigation, the plaintiff therein has availed of 3-4 adjournments for the purpose aforementioned. The property in suit is claimed by defendants therein to be public property. The plaintiff therein claimed to be in possession of that property. The plea, in the alternative, was that he is in adverse possession thereof. The defendant therein claims it to be a municipal property. There is a private defendant-respondent too in the controversy. Learned Trial Court granted ad-interim stay plea which (order of the Trial Court) was reversed by the learned Ist Appellate Court. The petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- i) The civil suit titled Nihal Chand Gupta Vs. Jat Maha Sabha and others shall be preponed to 20.4.2009. That will enable the Trial Court to take simultaneous proceedings in both the litigation aforementioned. This order shall be deemed to be a notification of the preponement. ii) The plaintiffs in both the litigation therein shall conclude their evidence on 20.4.2009. If plaintiffs are inclined to summon any official witness, they shall be entitled to take dasti summons but the non return or non effecting Civil Revision No. 3078 of 2006 -3- **** of service thereof would not entitle them to ask for any further adjournment. There is enough time for the purpose aforementioned. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in both the suits, assures that the plaintiffs therein shall positively conclude their evidence on 20.4.2009. iii) After conclusion of the evidence of the plaintiffs therein on 20.4.2009, the defendants therein (official and also private) shall be afforded three adjournments each for concluding their evidence. The fixture of the case, for recording of evidence of the defendants/respondents, should be simultaneous for one particular date. If the defendants are inclined to summon any official witness, they shall be entitled to take dasti summons but the non return or non effecting of service thereof would not entitle them to ask for any further adjournment. iv) The learned Trial Court shall dispose of the suits by or on 31.8.2009. The learned Trial Court would be authorised to accord priority to these two civil suits over the other file. v) The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the cases are disposed of by afore-mentioned date. March 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge