Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 868 (PNJ)

Murti Mata Bhadhar Kali v. Municipal Corporation

2005-08-18

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. As per office report, dasti notices issued to the respondents have not been received back. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the notices have been served, and he has been instructed to state that the process serving agency has informed the petitioners that the notices have to be returned through the process of the Court. 2. After considering the matter, I have no reason to doubt the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the notices have been served on the respondents. However, despite service, no one is present on their behalf. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. 3. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.6.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners has been closed. 4. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing or interfering with their possession or taking possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 905 measuring 26 kanals 8 marlas situated outside Gate Khazana, Chabhal Road, Amritsar, as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint in pursuance of notice dated 4.2.1998 purported to have been issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (respondent No. l). During the pendency of the suit, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide his impugned order dated 10.6.2005 has closed the evidence of the plaintiffs and the case is fixed for evidence of the defendants on 22.8.2005. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that a perusal of the order dated 10.6.2005 shows that the case was received by transfer and thereafter the evidence was closed by the transferee Court as on an earlier date i.e. 19.4.2005 last opportunity had been granted to conclude the entire evidence. In fact the plaintiffs and his witnesses were present in the Court where the case was earlier pending and they had no knowledge about the transfer of the case and closing of the evidence. The plaintiffs, it is contended, are semi-literate persons and are not much conversant with the Court procedure and work. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioners given another opportunity to lead their evidence. 6. The plaintiffs, it is contended, are semi-literate persons and are not much conversant with the Court procedure and work. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioners given another opportunity to lead their evidence. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and considering that there is no opposition to the prayer made, I find that the explanation of the petitioners is reasonable and justifiable. In the proceedings of the case it is possible that the plaintiffs and their witnesses were waiting for their turn in the Court before which the case was earlier pending i.e. in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar and the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar and was taken up on 10.6.2005. In fact, the order itself records that the case has been received by transfer. The petitioners are stated to be semi-literate and under the adversary system of justice are bound to be in a disadvantageous position because of dependence on their counsel through whom they appear. Besides, the cause of justice warrants that full opportunity is given to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence and they not be made to suffer on technicalities. In the circumstances, 1 am of the view that the order dated 10.6.2005 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.6.2005 is set aside. The plaintiffs shall be granted one opportunity to produce their evidence which they shall produce on the date to be fixed by the trial Court on 22.8.2005 for which date the case is pending before it.