CR No.3862 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3862 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.06.2011. Sunita Devi and others ....................Petitioners v. Vedparkash .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.TK Joshi,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendants/petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 21.5.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Mohindergarh, whereby evidence of the defendants/petitioners has been closed by court order. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.3.2004 against the husband of petitioner no.1, in respect of a plot. As per the said agreement the last date for registration of the sale deed was 25.3.2005 and out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-, plaintiff had already paid a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- was to be paid at CR No.3862 of 2011 2 the time of registration. The husband of petitioner no.1 filed written statement denying the execution of the said agreement to sell and took the plea that the said agreement to sell was a result of mis- representation, fraud and forgery. During the pendency of the suit, husband of the petitioner no.1 died and petitioners, illiterate widow and her minor children, were impleaded as party to the suit. It is stated that the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent was closed on 13.9.2010 and the case was fixed for defendants' evidence on 16.11.2010. It is stated that since 16.11.2010 till the passing of impugned order dated 21.5.2011, seven opportunities were availed by the defendants and during this period they had examined three DWs. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1, who is an illiterate lady, wants to appear in witness box and give evidence in support of her case. It is further stated that the the property in question is the only residential house the defendants/petitioners have and that the agreement to sell is a forged one and in case the petitioners are not afforded one last opportunity to lead their evidence, they would suffer irreparable loss. It is further submitted that the next date fixed is 8.6.2011. It is thus, prayed that one last opportunity be granted to the defendants/petitioners so that petitioner no.1 could examine herself in support of her case. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the paper book, though I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my CR No.3862 of 2011 3 opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff/respondent if one last effective opportunity is granted to the defendants/petitioners to conclude their evidence on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. This, shall however be subject to payment of costs so as to compensate the plaintiff. Accordingly, I deem it just and expedient in the interest of justice to grant one last effective opportunity to the defendants/petitioner to conclude their evidence on a date to be fixed by the trial court. This shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent by way of demand draft. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent/plaintiff to avoid further delay in the matter and expenses. Moreover, the respondent/plaintiff is being compensated by way of payment of costs. Disposed of in the above terms. 03.06.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge