Judgment:
Civil Revision No.1632 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1632 of 2014 Date of Decision:04.03.2014 Pathania Public School .....Petitioner Versus Sadhu Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sandeep Prakash Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially respondent No.1-plaintiff- Sadhu Ram son of Ram Dhari(for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit(Annexure P-2) for a decree of permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 4-defendants-Manmohan son of Jogi Ram & others and petitioner-defendant-Pathania Public School(for short “the defendants”.). The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statements(Annexures P-3 & P-4), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2. Having concluded the evidence of the plaintiff on 13.08.2013, the case was slated for evidence of the defendants. The trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants vide impugned order dated 19.10.2013(Annexure P-1). Rani Seema 2014.03.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1632 of 2014 2 3. The application(Annexure P-5) to recall/review the order (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner-defendant, was dismissed as well by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 02.12.2013.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant has preferred the present petition, 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 respondent No.1-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.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect.
7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit(Annexure P-2) for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner described here-in-above. The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence of the defendants was that, although many opportunities were granted, but they failed to conclude the evidence. Here to me, the trial Rani Seema 2014.03.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1632 of 2014 3 Court appears to have erred in this regard.
8. It is not a matter of dispute that the case remained pending, the plaintiff concluded his evidence on 13.08.2013 and the case was listed for evidence of the defendants. The bare perusal of the interim orders would reveal that the trial Court has adopted very hasty measures to close the evidence of the defendants on 19.10.2013, within a period of two months. Moreover, the production of evidence by the defendant was very much essential to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. In case, adequate opportunities are not granted to the petitioner-defendant, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to its case. Above all, no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiff, particularly when, he could well be compensated with adequate cost in this relevant context. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the indicated explanation put-forth, the trial Court ought to have granted one opportunity to the defendant, to complete its evidence.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 19.10.2013 and 02.12.2013 are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one more effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant, to conclude its evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by the petitioner-defendant to the plaintiff personally. At the same time, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to further defend the case. Rani Seema 2014.03.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1632 of 2014 4 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. March 04, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.03.06 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh