Civil Revision No.6010 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6010 of 2011 Date of Decision:29.09.2011 Lakhwinder Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Sukhwant Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Lakhwinder Kaur, unfortunate widow of Late Major Lashkar Singh-petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit(Annexure P-1) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining her son-in-law Sukhwant Singh son of Gurbachan Singh-respondent-defendant(for short “the defendant”), from interfering in her peaceful possession and from alienating the property in dispute, in any manner. 2. Having framed the essential issues, in the wake of pleadings of the parties, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. Since, no PW was present and the request for adjournment was declined, so, the trial Court closed her(plaintiff) evidence, by means of impugned order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P-4). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-4) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, invoking the Civil Revision No.6010 of 2011 2 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 defendant, in order to save him from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when he can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, but still he would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desires. 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 clear from the impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence was that, the plaintiff availed many opportunities to conclude the evidence, but in vain. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but the bare perusal of the interim(zimni) orders reproduced in the Grounds of Revision would reveal that the statement of PW Lakhwinder Kaur was recorded in chief on 11.03.2011, but her cross- examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the defendant. Again, statement of PW Kulwant Kaur was recorded in chief on 27.04.2011, but her cross-examination was also deferred on the request of counsel for the defendant. In this manner, the plaintiff alone cannot be blamed in this respect. Moreover, taking into consideration the nature of litigation, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude her evidence, subject to the payment of 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, then it will inculcate and Civil Revision No.6010 of 2011 3 perpetuate injustice to the case of the plaintiff. Above all, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant, particularly when, he can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. More so, when the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendant. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.05.2011(Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide two effective opportunities to the plaintiff, to conclude her evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner- plaintiff to the defendant. September 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.6010 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23943-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.6010 of 2011 Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE