CR No. 6954 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6954 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: December 21, 2010 Raj Rani and others ...Petitioners Versus Harbans Kaur ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. JS Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the respondent. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, and for granting them one more opportunity for leading their evidence and for permitting them to examine the hand writing expert. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from dispossessing them either herself or through her agents, servants, employees or attorneys from the shop in dispute, situated in Bagh Naurian Mal Jain, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, on the ground that Om Parkash husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 to 4 was the tenant in the shop and and after his CR No. 6954 of 2010 2 death, they are in possession thereof as such. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that Om Parkash was in possession of the shop only as a licencee and after his death, that licence stands revoked and a notice has already been served upon the plaintiffs for vacating the demised shop. After issues were framed, the plaintiffs were called upon to produce their evidence. They took a number of adjournments for that purpose. On 20.9.2010, examination-in-chief of three of their witnesses was recorded and their cross-examination was deferred. On that very date, an application was filed by them for permitting the hand writing expert to take the photographs of the disputed signatures of Om Parkash. However, keeping in view the fact that last opportunity had been granted to the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence and that their counsel had already suffered a statement on the previous date that he would conclude the entire evidence on the adjourned date, that application was declined and except for the cross-examination of the said three PWs the other evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order. The application filed by the plaintiffs for permitting their hand writing expert to take photographs of the disputed signatures of Om Parkash from the file was just an application for inspection of the record and such application could have been filed at any stage. The order of the trial court dismissing that application is apparently illegal. It was not to be gone into at that stage as to for what purpose the photographs were to be taken by the hand writing expert. The application for inspection of the record can be allowed at any stage. Once the trial court adjourned the case for cross-examination of CR No. 6954 of 2010 3 the witnesses, it should not have closed the other evidence of the plaintiffs and should have permitted them to produce their remaining evidence on the adjourned date. It is pertinent to note that the cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred on the request of the counsel for the defendant. The courts are not meant for penalizing the parties for some lapse on their part but are meant for doing justice to the parties. Though in the present revision petition, the petitioners have also made a prayer that they be permitted to examine the hand writing expert, who will submit his report on the basis of the comparison of the disputed signatures on the alleged licence fee and the endorsement made on the document with the standard signatures of Om Parkash, yet such a prayer is not to be allowed by this court. For that they should move an application before the trial court itself and the only question before this court is, whether another opportunity is to be granted to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence. In view of what has been stated above, it is a fit case where interest of justice requires that one more opportunity be granted to the petitioners to produce their evidence. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. The trial court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence, which is to be produced by them at their own responsibility. December 21, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE