C.R.No.2769 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2769 of 2011 Date of Order: 28.4.2011 Avtar Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Joginder Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1,2,4 to 6/petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 25.3.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur whereby their evidence has been closed by order. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Joginder Kaur filed a suit for declaration that she is co-owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the land of her father-Gurbachan Singh fully detailed in the head note of the suit; with a further declaration that the revenue entries and mutation showing her brother Satnam Singh or the defendants-petitioners, who are sons and daughters of Satnam Singh to be exclusive owners of the described land based on the alleged will dated 13.8.1981 are illegal and having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is, thus, clear that the suit is between the aunt and her nephew/nieces qua the inheritance of Gurbachan Singh-father of the C.R.No.2769 of 2011 #2# plaintiff and grand-father of the defendants-petitioners. It is further stated that the suit was filed on 30.5.2007, the issues were framed on 14.9.2007 and after 2-1/2 years, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 18.2.2010. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that the evidence on 25.3.2011 could not be concluded despite last opportunity due to the wrong noting of the date by the defendants. He very fairly concedes that though the petitioners-defendants have been given sufficient opportunities to conclude the evidence, however, keeping in view the nature of dispute between the family members, one last opportunity to conclude their evidence be granted subject to the respondent No.1-plaintiff being compensated with costs. It is further submitted that no effective proceedings have taken place since the passing of the order dated 25.3.2011 and the case is now fixed for rebuttal/arguments on 3.5.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view the nature of dispute between the parties, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to grant one opportunity to the defendants-petitioners to conclude their evidence. Accordingly, order dated 25.3.2011 closing the evidence of the petitioners-defendants is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to conclude their evidence on their responsibility on a date to be fixed by it subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondent No.1-plaintiff by way of demand draft with a further cost of Rs.2000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the opposite side as it would entail delay and expenditure to them, moreover they are being compensated by way of costs. However, in case, respondent C.R.No.2769 of 2011 #3# No.1-plaintiff has any grievance against passing of this order, liberty is granted for recalling the order by making an appropriate application. Allowed in the above terms. April 28, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE