Civil Revision No.5430 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5430 of 2011 Date of Decision:06.09.2011 Badlu and others ......Petitioners Versus Janggi and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Badlu and Umed(since deceased)(now being represented through his LRs)- petitioner-plaintiffs(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit against Chhote Khan son of Bhure Khan(since deceased)(now being represented through his LRs)- respondent-defendants(for short “the defendants”) for a decree of possession by way of redemption, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute. 2. The case was received by transfer on 30.07.2011 in the court of Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.). Since, no PW was present on that day and adjournment was declined, so, the trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.07.2011(Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiffs preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Civil Revision No.5430 of 2011 2 Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to respondent- 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 relevant connection. 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 petitioners-plaintiffs, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, 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 of the plaintiffs was that, no PW was present when the case was received by transfer and the plaintiffs have availed many opportunities to conclude the evidence, after framing the issues on 06.10.2007. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but the bare perusal of the interim orders produced in the Grounds of Revision by the petitioners, would reveal that the plaintiffs alone cannot be blamed in this regard because on three occasions, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and, thereafter, the case was repeatedly adjourned for impleading the LRs of Umed-plaintiff No.2 and Chhote Khan- defendant. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence, subject to 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 plaintiffs, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-defendants, Civil Revision No.5430 of 2011 3 particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Above all, the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendants. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the plaintiffs 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 06, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE