Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 147 (PNJ)

Entrepreneurs v. Matadin

2014-01-17

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- As, identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated revision petitions, arising out of the same impugned order, by way of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts. 2. The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record is that, petitioner-plaintiff-M/s Entrepreneurs (Calcutta) Pvt.Ltd.(for brevity “the plaintiff”) has instituted the civil suits for a decree of specific performance of the agreements to sell dated 28.09.2005 against the respondents-defendants(for short “the defendants”). The defendants contested the suits, filed the written statement, stoutly denied the allegations contained in it and prayed for dismissal of the suits. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the cases were slated for evidence of the plaintiff on 18.11.2013. The trial Court closed its evidence, by virtue of impugned orders dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure P-4). 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present revision petitions, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. At the very outset, in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondents-defendants, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suits, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, however, in case, the defendants are aggrieved by the order, in any manner, they would be at liberty to file a petition to recall this order without accepting the costs. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant revision petitions deserve to be partly accepted in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suits for specific performance of the agreements to sell dated 28.09.2005 against the defendants and the trial Court has closed its evidence by means of impugned order(Annexure P-4). 7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suits for specific performance of the agreements to sell dated 28.09.2005 against the defendants and the trial Court has closed its evidence by means of impugned order(Annexure P-4). The main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence of the plaintiff were that, in the previous order it was clarified that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing, the plaintiff has already availed several opportunities and the present cases are old and fall within the ambit of action plan. Here to me, the trial Court appears to have committed a legal mistake in this respect. 8. Ex facie, it may be true that the plaintiff has already availed many opportunities, failed to conclude the evidence and the cases fall within the ambit of action plan, but that ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to close his evidence. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff to conclude its evidence. To me, the production of such evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. If adequate opportunities are not granted to the plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to its case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants, particularly when, they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petitions are partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure P-4) are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to give one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude its evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each as compensatory costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. At the same time, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the defendants. Above all, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the cases. Needless to mention that the instant order has been rendered only in the peculiar facts & special circumstances of these cases and would not be relevant precedent in any other case.