Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 285 (PNJ)

Pushpa Devi v. Rattan Singh Gupta

2001-03-01

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - The facts which have bearing on the decision of the question raised in the revision are that the defendant/respondent was put in possession of the suit property by virtue of lease deed dated 13th December, 1976. He was also permitted to construct the building over the suit property. It was agreed that defendant No. 1 would be entitled to adjust the rent towards the costs of the building. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction and the relief claimed therein is as under : "that a decree for mandatory injunction in the following terms may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs of the suit :- (i) Directing defendant No. 1 to render account of the costs of the building incurred by him and to accept the balance cost of the building after adjusting the rent payable by him to the plaintiff till date. (ii) Directing defendant No. 1 to hand over actual/symbolic possession of the building to the plaintiff; (iii) Directing defendant No. 2 to pay the rent to the plaintiff; (iv) Directing payment of cost of litigation or any other relief which this Honble Court may deem fit may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff." 3. None has appeared on behalf of the defendant/respondent despite service. 4. I have heard Sh. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. 5. The parties went on trial and the trial Court had framed as many as 8 issues besides the issue of relief. The plaintiff has already closed her evidence and the evidence of the defendants was closed by order of the Court. The case was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments when an application was moved by the petitioner that the defendant may be directed to allow him to inspect the property in dispute with the help of an Architect. 6. Finding no merit in the application, the trial Court has dismissed it merely on the ground that the plaintiff who has already led evidence, cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. 7. 6. Finding no merit in the application, the trial Court has dismissed it merely on the ground that the plaintiff who has already led evidence, cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. 7. The issues, as they are, do not suggest that there is specific issue with regard to the adjustment of costs incurred by the defendant, with the rent payable by him, yet, the defendant had already led evidence by way of examining the expert who has assessed the value of the building. The plaintiff had specifically prayed that the defendant/petitioner be directed to render the accounts of the costs of the building incurred by him and to accept the same after adjusting the rent payable by him. Therefore, in order to establish this fact, he wants to get the premises inspected by an Architect so that he may be able to assess the value of the building. 8. The equity of justice demands that one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. If not allowed it would occasion failure of justice. Procedure is meant for advancing and not for obstructing the cause of justice. 9. In order to arrive at a fair conclusion of the case this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with a direction to the defendant/respondent to permit the petitioner to inspect the premises in question by an Architect. The trial Court is also directed to fix a date so that on the appointed date, the premises is inspected by an Expert/Architect in the presence of the parties or their representatives. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the trial Court on 5th April, 2001. Petition allowed.