Judgment:
Civil Revision No.1050 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1050 of 2014 Date of Decision:11.02.2014 Krishna and others .....Petitioners Versus Ashok Kumar Malik .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially respondent-plaintiff-Ashok Kumar Malik son of Harnarain Malik (for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against petitioners-defendants-Krishna wife of Jai Parkash and others(for short “the defendants”.). The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of the defendants. The trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants, except the cross-examination of deferred DWs, by means of impugned order dated 20.01.2014(Annexure P-1). Rani Seema 2014.02.11 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1050 of 2014 2 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-defendants have preferred the present 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-plaintiff, in order to save him from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when he can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, however, in case, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order, in any manner, he would be at liberty to file a petition to recall this order without accepting the costs.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect.
6. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for a decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner described here-in-above. The bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that , DWs Narender, Har Narain Malik and Satish were present and their examination-in-chief was recorded. Their cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. Still, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants by way of impugned order(Annexure P-1). In this manner, the trial Court appears to have committed a legal mistake, to Rani Seema 2014.02.11 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1050 of 2014 3 close the evidence of the defendants, particularly when the indicated DWs were present in the court and they were not cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff. 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. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the explanation put-forth by the petitioners, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendants, to conclude their evidence. If adequate opportunities are not granted to the defendants, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiff, particularly when, he could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.01.2014(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the defendants, to conclude their evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff personally. At the same time, 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. February 11, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.02.11 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh