CR No. 6142 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6142 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 22, 2010 Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Piara Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court, vide order dated 24.8.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 5337 of 2010 titled Ramesh Kumar versus Piara Singh and others, afforded one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility and in view of that order the petitioner filed an application before the trial court for summoning the witnesses named therein, after payment of the costs so ordered by this court, and that the said application was illegally rejected by the trial court by mis-interpreting the order passed by this court. As is made out from the grounds of revision petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the said order dated 6.9.2010, vide which his application for summoning of the witnesses was dismissed, the suit was filed by Piara Singh and other on 19.5.2000 against the present petitioner and other for CR No. 6142 of 2010 2 permanent injunction restraining them from interfering or causing to interfere and from disturbing or causing to disturb their peaceful, physical and exclusive possession over the constructed and unconstructed property in dispute situated in the revenue estate of Khanna Khurd, District Ludhiana, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants. The issues were framed as far back as in the year 2000 and thereafter the suit continued to be adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiffs upto 16.4.2010 by granting numerous adjournments. When the defendants entered upon their evidence, the trial court tried to rush through the matter and after granting five opportunities closed their evidence, by observing that it is a history sheet case. Keeping in view the fact that the suit is pending for a long time, this revision is being decided without issuing any notice to the other party. The relevant portion of the order dated 24.8.2010 is re-produced hereunder:- “...I deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision petition with a direction to the learned trial court to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility...” It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to prove that the plaintiffs are in possession of the part of the property in dispute, he wants to prove on record the demarcation report given by Pritipal Singh, Kanungo and for proving his ownership over the suit property, he wants to examine witnesses, mentioned in the application, which was dismissed, vide the impugned order. Two of the witnesses mentioned in the application are official witnesses and, as such, assistance of the court was required to be given for CR No. 6142 of 2010 3 summoning them. One effective opportunity was to be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence but that evidence was to be led at his own risk and responsibility. In all fairness, the trial court should have given dasti summons to the petitioner for summoning the witnesses mentioned in the application. To advance the cause of substantial justice, the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the trial court is set aside and it is directed to give dasti summons to the petitioner/defendant No.1 of the witnesses named in the application. The petitioner shall serve all these witnesses at his own responsibility for the date fixed and irrespective of the fact whether those witnesses are served or not served by him, no further opportunity shall be granted. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 22, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE