CR No.3029 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3029 of 2009 Date Of Decision: 08.09.2009 **** Dr. N.K. Bhatia . . . . Petitioner VS. Maharawal Khewaji Religious and Charitable Trust, Faridkot . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This petitioner-defendant is aggrieved at the order dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, whereby one of the issue has been re-framed, as to “whether the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is barred by limitation?” and its onus to prove has been shifted upon the petitioner-defendant. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In my considered view, no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Civil Court in asking the petitioner to prove the preliminary objection raised by him to the effect that the Civil Suit filed by the respondent is barred by limitation. However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that during the pendency of this revision petition, the learned Civil Court has closed the evidence of the petitioner. CR No.3029 of 2009 - 2 - Since the petitioner has been pursuing two revision petitions before this Court and proceedings are not stayed, I am of the considered view that by closing his evidence, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent fairly submits that opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence. Consequently, the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the learned Civil Court during the pendency of the revision petitions regarding closure of the petitioner’s evidence is set aside and as a sequel thereto, the petitioner shall be granted reasonable opportunities to lead his entire evidence on the issues raised. I have also gone through the issues originally framed by the Civil Court on 20th January, 2005 as well as the subsequently framed Issue No.5, the onus whereof has been shifted on the petitioner-defendant. It is made clear that firstly, the respondent- plaintiff shall lead its evidence to discharge its onus in respect of issues No.1 & 2 and thereafter only the petitioner-defendant shall be required to lead his evidence in support of the re-framed issue of limitation i.e. Issue No.5 and/or other issues, to be proved by him. The Civil Court shall grant nor more than 5 opportunities each to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. I am also constrained to observe that the learned Presiding Officer, while passing some of the orders appears to have inadvertently deviated from absolute objectivity which it has unnecessarily created an avoidable and misconceived apprehension in the mind of the defendant-petitioner. Be that as it may and with a view to rule out even slightest apprehension in the mind of a litigating party, however, without acknowledging the petitioner’s apprehension, the learned District Judge, Faridkot is directed to entrust suit to some other Presiding Officer. However, this direction, in no circumstances, shall be taken as an adverse comment on the conduct of the learned Presiding Officer. Ordered accordingly, Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.09.2009 shonkar CR No.3029 of 2009 - 3 -