Civil Revision No.5205 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-19.8.2010 Balwinder Kaur and others ...Petitioners Versus Sukhwinder Singh son of Balwant Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The crux of the facts, relevant for the limited purpose to decide the core controversy involved in the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Sukhwinder Singh son of Balwant Singh respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining Mohan Singh son of Chet Singh (since deceased), being represented by his legal representatives Balwinder Kaur and others petitioner- defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) from alienating the suit property in any manner. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 5.5.2006. 3. In the wake of appeal by the defendants, the first appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case back to the trial Court, vide judgment dated 19.12.2009 (Annexure P1). 4. Having the case was remanded, the defendants did not conclude their evidence despite repeated adjournments. Consequently, the trial Court closed their evidence, vide impugned order dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure P2). 5. The petitioner-defendants did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P2) and filed the present revision petition. Civil Revision No.5205 of 2010 2 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants and having gone through the record with his valuable help, to me, ex facie true, more than sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the defendants to conclude their evidence, after the remand of the case, to the trial Court, but they failed to do so. Be that as it may, but taking into consideration that the Court official was required to be summoned alongwith the judicial file from Sangrur and the nature of the litigation, in which, the property of the defendants is involved, to my mind, it would be expedient in the interest and justice would be sub-served, to grant one more opportunity to them to conclude their evidence, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. I also hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent-plaintiff in order to avoid his counsel fee, litigation expenses in the High Court and further delay in disposal of his suit, particularly when he can well be compensated with heavy costs. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order (Annexure P2) is set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner-defendants to conclude their evidence at their own responsibility, failing which, the same would be deemed to have been closed by order of the Court. However, this would be subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as compensatory cost on the defendants. The trial Court is directed to ensure that this compensatory cost is personally paid to the respondent-plaintiff and not to anybody else. Thus, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for compliance. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 19.8.2010 Judge AS