Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 165 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. Harsh Singla

2014-01-20

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The epitome of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, initially respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs-Harsh Singla son of Sham Lal & Jiwan Kumar son of Narata Ram(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) have instituted the civil suit(Annexure P-1) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance, declaration and injunction against petitioner-Raj Kumar son of Late Sh.Des Raj and other proforma respondents defendants (for short “the defendants”) on 05.06.2008. The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement(Annexure P-2), stoutly denied the allegations contained in it and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. Having completed the evidence of the plaintiffs, the trial Court slated the case for evidence of the defendants for 17.09.2013 for the first time. The trial Court has refused to adjourn the case and closed the evidence of the defendants by virtue of impugned order dated 17.12.2013(Annexure P-3). 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant No.1 has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. 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 respondent Nos.1 & 2-plaintiffs, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, however, in case, the plaintiffs 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. 5. 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 petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. 6. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence was that, the case is fixed for defendants’ evidence since 17.09.2013, they have availed many opportunities including the last opportunity, but they have failed to conclude their evidence. Here to me, the trial Court appears to have committed a legal mistake in this respect. 7. Ex facie, it may be true that many opportunities were provided to the defendants to conclude the evidence, but that ipso facto is not a ground, much less cogent, to close their evidence. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendant to conclude his evidence. 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 defendant, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiffs, particularly when, they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P-3) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the defendant, to conclude his evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by petitioner defendant to the plaintiffs. At the same time, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiffs. Above all, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. Needless to mention that the instant order has been rendered only in the peculiar facts & special circumstances of this case and would not be relevant precedent in any other case.