Civil Revision No.5849 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5849 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.09.2011 Punjab Wakf Board ......Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Siryawala .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.G.N.Malik, 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, Punjab Wakf Board-petitioner- plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against the Gram Panchayat, Village Siryawala, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda-respondent-defendant(for short “the defendant”) for a decree of possession with respect to the land in dispute. 2. As the evidence was not concluded, despite many opportunities, therefore, the trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned order dated 20.07.2011(Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff 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 defendant- Gram Panchayat, in order to save it from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when the defendant can well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. Be that as Civil Revision No.5849 of 2011 2 it may, but still it 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 help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 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 did not conclude its evidence, despite having availed many opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude its evidence, subject to the payment of costs. The production of such evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. To me, if the opportunity is not granted, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the plaintiff. Above all, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant, particularly when, it can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. 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 20.07.2011(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude its evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the Sarpanch of defendant-Gram Panchayat. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. September 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5849 of 2011 3 C.M.No.23363-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5849 of 2011 Present: Mr.G.N.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE