Civil Revision No.5763 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5763 of 2011 Date of Decision:26.09.2011 Jagir Singh alias Raghbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus Jatinder Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Jagir Singh alias Raghbir Singh son of Davinder Singh-petitioner-plaintiff No.1 and his brothers Santokh Singh and Daljit Singh-proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5-plaintiff Nos.2 and 3(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Jatinder Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ajay Kumar sons of Buta Ram-respondent Nos.1 to 3-defendants(for short “the defendants”) from dispossessing or interfering in their cultivating peaceful possession of the land in dispute, in any manner. 2. As the plaintiffs did not conclude the evidence and adjournment was declined, therefore, their evidence was closed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 17.01.2011(Annexure P-2). The application under Section 151 CPC, for permission to produce the evidence, was also dismissed by the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 26.07.2011(Annexure P-4). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decisions(Annexures P-2 and P-4) of the Civil Revision No.5763 of 2011 2 trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 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 defendants, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. Be that as it may, but still they would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desire. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is clear from the impugned orders that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence was that, the plaintiffs did not conclude their evidence, having availed numerous opportunities. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence, subject to the payment of costs. The production of evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. To me, if the opportunity to conclude the evidence is not granted, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the plaintiffs. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. Above all, when the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendants. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders(Annexures P-2 and P-4) are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the Civil Revision No.5763 of 2011 3 plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by petitioner- plaintiff No.1 to the defendants. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the defendants. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. September 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5763 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23043-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5763 of 2011 Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE