C.R. No. 4787 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4787 of 2005 Date of Decision: 24.08.2009 1. Bhopinder Singh s/o Rai Singh s/o Diwan Singh r/o H. No. 842, Ward No. 4, Adampur, District Jalandhar, through attorney Kuldeep Singh s/o Rai Singh, petitioner No. 2. 2. Kuldeep Singh s/o Rai Singh s/o Diwan Singh, r/o H. No. 842, Ward No. 4, Adampur, District Jalandhar. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus 1. Rajinder Singh s/o Karnail Singh, r/o Adampur, District Jalandhar. 2. Amrik Singh s/o Balwant Singh, r/o MCA-1242, Adampur, District Jalandhar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Service of respondent No. 1, dispensed with. Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution C.R. No. 4787 of 2005 2 of India, is directed, against the order dated 22.08.05, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which, it dismissed the application of defendants No. 1 and 2/revision- petitioners, dated 03.03.05, for cross-examining the witnesses of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2. 2. A suit for permanent injunction, was filed by Rajinder Singh, plaintiff/respondent No. 1, restraining the defendants, from interfering into his possession, over the property, in dispute, except in accordance with the provisions of law. 3. An application, was moved by defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, that they were not afforded an opportunity, to cross-examine the witnesses, produced by defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, on 04.02.05, when they were proceeded against exparte. Accordingly, a prayer, was made, that they may be allowed, to cross- examine the witnesses of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2. 4. This application, was contested by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, as well as defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, by filing reply. It was stated that full opportunity, was afforded to defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, to cross-examine the witnesses of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, but if, of their own, they did not do so, no further opportunity, could be granted to them, for the said purpose. It was further stated that the application, was moved, just with a view to delay the proceedings. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going C.R. No. 4787 of 2005 3 through the record, the trial Court, dismissed the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2/revision- petitioners, submitted that it was the legal right of the revision- petitioners, to cross-examine the witnesses of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2. He further submitted that non-affording of opportunity, to cross-examine the witnesses, produced by defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, to defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, amounted to denial of justice to them. He further submitted that the trial Court, was wrong, in dismissing the application. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that full opportunity, was granted, to defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 2. He further submitted that, if their Counsel, did not cross- examine the witnesses of his own, then the Court, was not required to grant another opportunity. He further submitted that the application, was rightly dismissed. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The perusal of the documents, on record, C.R. No. 4787 of 2005 4 clearly reveals that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, closed his evidence, on 24.09.03, and the case, was adjourned to 16.09.03, for the evidence of the defendants. Defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, filed his affidavit as DW1, whereas Mohinder Singh, a witness, on his behalf, appeared as DW2, on 08.01.04. The remaining witnesses of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, as DW3 and DW4, appeared, in the Court, on 23.02.04. It is further evident that DW3 and DW4, were cross- examined, on 23.02.04, whereas DW1 and DW2, namely Amrik Singh and Mohinder Singh, were cross-examined, on 20.01.05. On both these dates, the Counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2/revision- petitioners, was present. There is nothing, on the record, that the Court below, ever declined him an opportunity, to cross-examine the witnesses of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, on the aforesaid dates. On 04.02.05, when defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, were proceeded against exparte, no witness of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, was present. On that date, simply defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2, closed the evidence. Not only this, even it is evident from annexure P2, copy of the written statement, filed by defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, that they admitted paras No. 2 to 3 of the plaint. In para No. 4 of the written statement, it was stated by them, that they never threatened the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, to take forcible possession of the plot. In answer to para No. 5 of the plaint, it was stated, in the written statement, that the same needed no reply. In reply to paras No. 6 and 7 of the plaint, in the written statement, filed by C.R. No. 4787 of 2005 5 defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, it was stated that the same were legal. In para No. 8, it was pleaded that the suit deserved to be dismissed. From the perusal of the written statement, filed by defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, it was, thus, evident, that they admitted the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. As such the interest of defendants No. 1 and 2/revision-petitioners, and the plaintiff was common, and did not clash with the interest of defendant No. 3/respondent No. 2. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is dismissed. The parties, are directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 24.09.09, at 10.00 AM sharp, for further proceedings. 24.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE