C.R.No.2151 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2151 of 2009 Date of Order: 21.4.2009 Jagjeetinder Singh .....Petitioners Versus Manjeetinder Singh and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J Prayer in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India made by petitioner-defendant No.3 is for quashing order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Talwandi Sabo whereby the cross-examination of the petitioner and another witness-Ranjit Kaur has been refused and evidence closed by order. Respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs, brothers of petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration that they are exclusive owners in possession of land measuring 72 kanals 0 marlas as described in the head note of the plaint by way of adverse possession and for permanent injunction on 29.1.2004. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-defendant No.3 along with his witness Ranjit Kaur was present in Court on 29.11.2008 for adducing their evidence but the learned Court illegally refused to examine them vide the impugned order in view of their conduct on the same date C.R.No.2151 of 2009 #2# while recording their cross examination and on the ground that his counsel had already made the statement on the previous date i.e 12.11.2008 that the entire evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.3 would be produced on the fixed date i.e 29.11.2008 and in the event of the failure, the evidence be deemed to be closed. Learned counsel further contends that the evidence of the petitioners has been wrongly closed by order as the witnesses were present and had also been forgiven by the learned Court when they tendered their apology. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, in my considered opinion, the revision petition merits acceptance as both the witnesses i.e petitioner-defendant No.3 and Ranjit Kaur were present in Court on 29.11.2008. In my view, statement of their counsel on the previous date that if the entire evidence is not led on the next date the same be deemed to be closed, stood diluted on their presence for tendering evidence. Therefore, learned Court was not correct in giving undue weightage to the same. The Court had itself let off the witnesses for their misconduct in view of their subsequent apology on the same date, therefore, that cannot be taken to be one of the grounds to deny them to lead their evidence. It is quite settled that the approach of the Courts should be towards final and substantial determination of disputes between the parties, rather than defeating them on hypertechnical grounds. In view of the above, I deem it just and expedient to allow opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence. Accordingly, order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), C.R.No.2151 of 2009 #3# Talwandi Sabo is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for his evidence and of another witness- Ranjit Kaur on a date to be fixed by it subject to payment of Rs.4000/- as costs to be equally paid to respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs. For the view I have taken in the present revision petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice as the same would have unnecessarily caused delay in the disposal of the present petition besides burdening the other party with unnecessarily litigation expenses, who, in any case, have been compensated by way of costs. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. April 21, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE