In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5113 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:September 08, 2009 Mohinder Singh and another ---Petitioners versus Balvir Kaur and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. R.K.Jindal,Advocate, for the petitioners *** SABINA J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.8.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mansa (Annexure P-3). Balbir Kaur and others-plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.5.2008, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside by Additional District Judge, Mansa vide judgment dated 19.5.2009 and the suit was remanded back to the trial court. Learned Additional District Judge in para 9 of its judgment held as under:- “In view of above discussion, the appeal is accepted and Civil Revision No. 5113 of 2009(O&M) -2- judgment and decree under appeal are set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court with direction to give one opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence for the purpose of cross-examination of PW-1 Bholi, plaintiff No. 3 and Lilo, plaintiff No. 2. the parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the lower Court on 1.6.2009 and on that day the trial Court should fix date for the purpose of cross- examination of PW-1 Bholi, plaintiff No. 3 and Lilo, plaintiff No. 2 . However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Lower Court record along with copy of this judgment be sent back . The file be consigned.” Thereafter on remand, two witnesses were examined by the plaintiffs on 17.8.2009 and the learned trial court adjourned the case to 12.9.2009 for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs, if any, and for arguments. Hence, the preset revision petition by the defendants No. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, an opportunity was required to be given to the petitioners-defendants to lead their defence evidence as on remand of the suit, the entire case had to be decided afresh. There is force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Additional District Judge had remanded back the suit to the trial court after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by it and had further directed that one opportunity be granted to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence for the purposes of cross examination of PW-1 Civil Revision No. 5113 of 2009(O&M) -3- Bholi-paintiff No. 3 and Lilo-plaintiff No. 2. Thereafter, it was necessary for the trial court to fix the case for defendants' evidence as defendants had to be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs. Learned trial court has erred in fixing the case for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs' and for arguments without giving any opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence after the close of the evidence of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.8.2009, whereby the case was ordered to be adjourned for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments is set aside and it is ordered that the case on 12.9.2009 be treated to have been fixed for defendants' evidence and thereafter, the trial court shall proceed further with the case in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2009 PARAMJIT