Civil Revision No.4928 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4928 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.08.2011 Gram Panchayat Jatvas ......Petitioner Versus Shyam Lal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Ms.Monika Jalota, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Shyam Lal son of Uma Dutt-respondent- plaintiff(for short “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat Jatvas-petitioner-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”) from interfering, in any manner, in his possession over the land in dispute. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of the defendant for 28.07.2011. On that day, statement of one witness was recorded and the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant, by means of impugned order dated 28.07.2011(Annexure P-2), which is in the following manner:- “One DW is present and recorded. No other evidence of the defendant is present despite last opportunity. Hence, the evidence of the defendant is hereby closed by court order. Adjournment sought. Heard. Allowed. Now to come up on 16.8.11 for rebuttal evidence if any and arguments. Cost of Rs.300/- deposited in Legal Aid Authority vide receipt No.16187 dated 28.7.2011 produced.” Civil Revision No.4928 of 2011 2 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision(Annexure P-2) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant Gram Panchayat 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 respondent- plaintiff, 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 be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with her valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is clear, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence of the defendant was, that many opportunities have been granted to it(Gram Panchayat) to conclude the evidence. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but the argument of the learned counsel that since Pyare Lal, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, was not well, ultimately expired on 10.03.2011 and the new Sarpanch was elected on 19.06.2011, who took oath on 08.07.2011, so, he could not produce the evidence for the indicated reason, has considerable force. 8. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat has projected the plausible explanation, relatable to the death of previous Sarpanch, for not concluding the evidence. So, taking into consideration the nature of litigation and plausible explanation, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner-defendant, to conclude its evidence, subject to costs, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, particularly when, he can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. More so, when the case is still fixed Civil Revision No.4928 of 2011 3 for rebuttal evidence. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the defendant-Gram Panchayat, to conclude the evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-defendant to the plaintiff. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. August 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE