CR No.6650/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6650/2011 Date of decision: 02.11.2011. Gurmit Singh ....................Petitioner v. Jaswant Singh and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.RL Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nikhil Batta,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Gurmit Singh, legal representative of defendant no.1-Surjit Kaur, has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by way of present revision petition assailing the order dated 30.5.2011 (P5) whereby the learned trial court has ordered the evidence of defendant no.1 as closed by order in view of no DW being present. Briefly the facts are that respondents-plaintiffs Jaswant Singh and Hoshiar Singh sons of Harnam Singh filed a suit for declaration that they are owner in joint possession in equal shares to the extent of 2/7th share in the two electric tube wells installed in two separate killa numbers with consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendant no.1-Surjit Kaur, who is widow of their late brother CR No.6650/2011 2 Jagir Singh and defendant no.2-Mewa Singh, their other brother from interfering or shifting the tube wells. It is claimed that the two tube wells were installed in the name of their two brothers namely Jagir Singh and Mewa Singh in view of the scheme granting priority to ex- servicemen, since both the brothers were serving in the Army at the relevant time. The said tube wells were got installed from the joint family income to irrigate the joint/ancestral land of the family. Learned counsel contends that petitioner-defendant though had availed sufficient opportunities to lead her evidence, however, the same was not led in view of the fact that an application for staying the suit in the light of other suit relating to the ownership of the property between the same parties was pending at the appellate stage. It is thus contended that petitioner/defendant was under a bona fide belief that the evidence is to be led after the decision of the application which admittedly was pending on the day the impugned order dated 30.5.2011 was passed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant I find that the ends of justice would be fully met if last opportunity is granted to the defendant-petitioner to lead his entire evidence since the endeavour of the court is to decide the lis on merits rather than on technicalities. No doubt, the petitioner was granted more than sufficient time to lead his evidence and as such the impugned order cannot be faulted, however, the fact that application seeking stay of the proceedings was pending, as noticed by the court in the impugned CR No.6650/2011 3 order itself and thus had raised a bona fide presumption that the defendant no.1-petitioner was under a belief that the evidence will be led after the decision of the application. Be that as it may, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to grant the defendants one last effective opportunity to conclude their entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the trial court. This shall, however, be subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 30.5.2011 is set aside and the defendant-petitioner is granted one last effective opportunity to conclude his entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the trial court, at his own responsibility. This, shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs payable to two plaintiffs in equal share by way of demand draft. This order is being passed without issuing notice to respondent in order to avoid unnecessary delay and expenditure. Moreover, the plaintiffs-respondents have been compensated by way of costs. Disposed of. 02.11.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge