In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Vs. Amolak Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1120563
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-15-2014
AppellantIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
RespondentAmolak Singh and Others
Excerpt:
civil revision no.90 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.90 of 2014 date of decision:15.01.2014 rakesh mehta .....petitioner versus amolak singh and others .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar. present: mr.amit rawal, senior advocate, with mr.manvinder dalal, advocate, for the petitioner. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) the contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, petitioner-plaintiff rakesh mehta son of baldev rai(for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.01.2005 against respondents-defendants amolak singh son of bhagwan singh and others (for short “the defendants”.). the defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied the allegations contained in it and prayed for dismissal of the suit.2. having completed all the codal formalities, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. ultimately, on 06.06.2012, the trial court passed the following order(annexure p-4)(colly.):- “pw3 has been examined in chief, cross examination is deferred. counsel for the plaintiff stated that plaintiff wants to examine only one witness of bank official also. this was last opportunity to plaintiff to rani seema 2014.01.17 17:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil revision no.90 of 2014 2 conclude his evidence. hence, accordingly except for cross-examination of the said witness pw3 and except for statement of official of bank oral evidence of plaintiff is closed by order. this witness is bound down for cross examination for 27.7.2012 and summons for procuring the presence of bank official will be obtained by the plaintiff.”. 3. sequelly, the applications to review/recall the order dated 06.06.2012 and for additional evidence filed by the plaintiff, were dismissed as well by the trial court, by means of impugned orders dated 26.10.2013 and 17.12.2013(annexure p-4)(colly.), respectively.4. aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present revision 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 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 suit, 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 senior 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 respect.7. as is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement rani seema 2014.01.17 17:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil revision no.90 of 2014 3 to sell dated 29.01.2005 against the defendants. the trial court partially closed the evidence of the plaintiff by virtue of impugned order dated 06.06.2012. the applications to review/recall the order dated 06.06.2012 and for additional evidence filed by him, were dismissed as well by the trial court, by virtue of impugned orders dated 26.10.2013 and 17.12.2013(annexure p-4), respectively. the main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial court to close the evidence of the plaintiff were that, he has availed numerous opportunities, but failed to conclude the evidence and usually whenever a party engages a new counsel, then it is a common trend to file such applications to delay the suit. here to me, the trial court appears to have slipped into a deep legal error in this respect, because the plaintiff was not going to be benefitted, in any manner, to delay his own suit.8. ex facie, it may be true that many opportunities were provided to the plaintiff to conclude the evidence, 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 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 plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his 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 petition rani seema 2014.01.17 17:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil revision no.90 of 2014 4 is partly accepted. consequently, the impugned orders(annexure p-4) (colly.) are hereby set aside. the trial court is directed to give one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude his evidence. however, this would be subject to the payment of `10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) 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. needless to mention that the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. january 15, 2014 (mehinder singh sullar) seema judge rani seema 2014.01.17 17:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Revision No.90 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.90 of 2014 Date of Decision:15.01.2014 Rakesh Mehta .....Petitioner Versus Amolak Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Manvinder Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, petitioner-plaintiff Rakesh Mehta son of Baldev Rai(for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.01.2005 against respondents-defendants Amolak Singh son of Bhagwan Singh and others (for short “the defendants”.). The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied the allegations contained in it and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. Ultimately, on 06.06.2012, the trial Court passed the following order(Annexure P-4)(colly.):- “PW3 has been examined in chief, cross examination is deferred. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that plaintiff wants to examine only one witness of bank official also. This was last opportunity to plaintiff to Rani Seema 2014.01.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.90 of 2014 2 conclude his evidence. Hence, accordingly except for cross-examination of the said witness PW3 and except for statement of official of bank oral evidence of plaintiff is closed by order. This witness is bound down for cross examination for 27.7.2012 and summons for procuring the presence of bank official will be obtained by the plaintiff.”. 3. Sequelly, the applications to review/recall the order dated 06.06.2012 and for additional evidence filed by the plaintiff, were dismissed as well by the trial Court, by means of impugned orders dated 26.10.2013 and 17.12.2013(Annexure P-4)(colly.), respectively.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present revision 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 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 suit, 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 senior 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 respect.

7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement Rani Seema 2014.01.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.90 of 2014 3 to sell dated 29.01.2005 against the defendants. The trial Court partially closed the evidence of the plaintiff by virtue of impugned order dated 06.06.2012. The applications to review/recall the order dated 06.06.2012 and for additional evidence filed by him, were dismissed as well by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned orders dated 26.10.2013 and 17.12.2013(Annexure P-4), respectively. The main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence of the plaintiff were that, he has availed numerous opportunities, but failed to conclude the evidence and usually whenever a party engages a new counsel, then it is a common trend to file such applications to delay the suit. Here to me, the trial Court appears to have slipped into a deep legal error in this respect, because the plaintiff was not going to be benefitted, in any manner, to delay his own suit.

8. Ex facie, it may be true that many opportunities were provided to the plaintiff to conclude the evidence, 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 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 plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his 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 petition Rani Seema 2014.01.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.90 of 2014 4 is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders(Annexure P-4) (colly.) are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to give one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude his evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) 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. Needless to mention that the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. January 15, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.01.17 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh