IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.8076 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 23, 2011 M/s Idea’s Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner Versus Gurnam Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ludhaina, whereby application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed in default on 09.12.2009, has been dismissed. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.07.2005 of land measuring 33 kanals, 14 marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,50,000/- per acre. It has been specifically pleaded in the plaint that the respondents-defendant had received an amount of Rs.17,25,000/- by way of cheques as earnest money. The suit was filed in the year 2009. On 09.12.2009 no one had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and plaintiff also did not make Court fees good. On both the counts, the suit was dismissed in default. In the application for restoration, a specific plea was taken by the plaintiff that it was due to communication gap with the lawyer and plaintiff could not attend the Court on 09.12.2009 when the suit was dismissed in default. He engaged another counsel to apply the certified copy of order dated 09.12.2009 and thereafter filed application for restoration of the suit. Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner-plaintiff had already paid Rs.17,25,000/- as earnest money, on account of lapse on the part of his counsel, he could not proceed with the suit and in view of the law laid down in case of Kanshi Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 102, the present revision petition is allowed and order dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure P- 4) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to enable the petitioner-plaintiff to make Court fee good, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited by the plaintiff-petitioner with the District Legal Aid Fund, Ludhiana and then proceeds with the suit. 23.12.2011 (RITU BAHRI) vcgarg JUDGE to file the written statement. Challenge is to the order dated 5.9.2011 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. In the present case, the suit was instituted on 23.5.2010 and issues were framed on 16.11.2010. On 28.4.2011 statements of plaintiff and four witnesses namely, Rajbala, Hari Chand, Ishwar and Krishan were recorded. PW1 Rajbala was cross-examined on 9.6.2011. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Precise grievance of the petitioner is that one of C.R. No. 7454 of 2011 [ 2 ] the witnesses Ishwar, after cross-examined, died on 9.11.2011. The other two witnesses Hari Chand, brother of Ishwar, and Krishan son of Ishwar, could not be crossexamined. In the interest of justice, the order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P-11) is set aside. One opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to cross-examine Hari Chand and Krishan subject to payment of `2,000/- as costs. Civil Revision is allowed. Challenge is to the order dated 13.06.2011 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff-Sunita has been closed on the ground that there was no compromise effected between the parties. Perusal of order dated 13.06.2011, reveals that the Court had granted last opportunity to effect the compromise and one PW was examined on 13.06.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute is regarding the common passage falling between the land of the plaintiff and the respondent. He further contends that plaintiff/petitioner wants to examine herself as a sole witness. The case is pending adjudication since 2007, in the interest of justice one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to examine herself as witness. Civil Revision No. 7467 of 2011 -2- In view of the above, the order dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-4) is set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to examine herself, subject to payment of `2,000/- as costs. Civil Revision is allowed No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order, as concededly these issues have come up after the filing of divorce petition in May 2009. While allowing the proposed amendment the present petitioner-wife will be at liberty to lead her evidence in defence. Civil Revision is dismissed. Civil Revision is allowed. Order dated 29.11.2011 is set aside and a direction is given to the trial court to give an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to enable him to conclude his evidence subject to payment of `5,000/- as costs. Summons for two official witnesses be also issued. On 8.1.2012, no further opportunity is required to be given for leading evidence. If plaintiff-respondent has any objection to this order, he is at liberty to approach this Court. 6.12.2011 ( ( 23.12.2011 (RITU BAHRI) vcgarg JUDGE