Civil Revision No.4856 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4856 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.08.2011 Rupinder Kaur and another .....Petitioners Versus Charan Kaur alias Gurcharan Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ivneet Singh Pabla, 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 Smt.Charan Kaur @ Gurcharan Kaur, daughter of Late Kehar Singh- respondent-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration/joint possession and for permanent injunction against Rupinder Kaur wife of, and Sarvjeet Kaur, daughter of, Gurcharan Singh-petitioner-defendants (for short “the defendants”). 2. In the wake of process, to dispose of the case, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants by way of impugned order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P-4), which is as under:- “DW7 examined. The summon issued to Lalit Gautam, Advocate District Court Kurukshetra has been received unserved with the report that he is not well and not even appearing in the Court. It is pertinent to mention that various effective summons have been sent to Sh.Lalit Gautam, Advocate. However, every time the report of him being unwell being received before the Court. Moreover, Sh.Neeraj Gautam, Advocate son of the present witness has also stated before the Court that his father is not in a position to appear or recall anything as he is seriously ill. It would certainly not be in the larger interest of justice if any further opportunity is granted to defendants for leading their further evidence. A number of effective last Civil Revision No.4856 of 2011 2 opportunities have already granted by the Court, including a total of 14 effective opportunities for defendant evidence. Therefore, taking into view the larger interest of justice present sequence of events and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the present case is an identified old case for Action Plan 2011-12, the evidence of the defendants is closed by the order of the Court. Now to come up on 27.7.2011 for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments.” 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the petitioner- defendants 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- plaintiff, in order to save her from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when she can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 6. As indicated earlier, it is clear that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence of the defendants was, that number of effective opportunities have already been granted to them, but they failed to conclude the evidence. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but it is apparent on the face of record that the defendants took every step, to examine Sh.Lalit Gautam, Advocate, in order to prove the documents and they cannot possibly be blamed in this relevant connection. It was the duty of the Court, to examine the witness and if the witness is unable to attend the Court, on account of his serious illness, then his statement can otherwise be recorded on commission etc., at the expenses of the defendants. Civil Revision No.4856 of 2011 3 Above all, the mere fact that the main suit is an identified old case for Action Plan for the year 2011-12, ipso facto is not a ground, to deny the parties to lead evidence, in order to substantiate their pleaded stands. Administration of justice is a paramount consideration than the Action Plan. The parties cannot possibly be denied the adequate opportunities, to produce their evidence in the garb of Action Plan 2011-12. The production of such evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted opportunity to the defendants, to conclude their evidence in the obtaining circumstances of the case. To me, if the opportunity is not granted to them, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, particularly when, she can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant context. More so, when the case is still fixed for rebuttal evidence. 9. 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 effective opportunity to the defendants, to conclude their evidence. They are directed to take every endeavour/effective steps, to conclude the evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-defendants to the plaintiff. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. 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. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4856 of 2011 4 C.M.No.19438-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.4856 of 2011 Present: Mr.Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE