Civil Revision No.4512 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4512 of 2011 Date of Decision:27.07.2011 Kulwant Singh ......Petitioner Versus Gajjan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour 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 Gajjan Singh son of Ishar Singh and others- respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit against Janak Singh and others-proforma respondent Nos.5 to 9 and petitioner-Kulwant Singh son of Jit Singh-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”), for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.06.2004, executed by petitioner-defendant No.6, in respect of the land in dispute. The defendants refuted the claim of the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. Having closed the evidence of the plaintiffs, the case was slated for evidence of the defendants by the trial Court. Many opportunities were stated to have been granted to the defendants to conclude their evidence, but they failed to do so. Ultimately, the trial Court closed their evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 20.05.2011, which is, as follows:- “Sh.R.V.Vashista, the document expert is present. He is(sic) His statement is recorded. Cost has been paid. No other evidence of the defendant is Civil Revision No.4512 of 2011 2 present today. Many times the last opportunity has been granted and the cost imposed as no other evidence is present today. The evidence of defendant is ordered to be closed. Now to come up for rebuttal evidence on 9.6.2011.” 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, petitioner- defendant No.6 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 respondent- plaintiffs, 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 be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 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 regard. 6. As is evident from the record that the respondent-plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, in respect of the land in dispute. The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court in closing the evidence of the defendants was, that since, many opportunities were granted and cost has been imposed on them, so, they(defendants) are not entitled to further adjournment. 7. That may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendants, to conclude their evidence. The production of evidence of the defendants in the suit is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. Therefore, the trial Court has committed the material, procedural irregularity & illegality and the impugned order cannot be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. To me, if the Civil Revision No.4512 of 2011 3 opportunity is not granted to the defendants, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiffs in this context, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant context. More so, when the case is still fixed for rebuttal evidence. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, 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 defendant No.6, to conclude his evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs, to be paid by defendant No.6 to the plaintiffs. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiffs. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. July 27, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE