Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma Advocate Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127200
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr.Ramesh Sharma Advocate
RespondentMohinder Singh and Others
Excerpt:
civil revision no.1069 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.1069 of 2014 date of decision:11.02.2014 jit kaur .....petitioner versus mohinder singh and others .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar. present: mr.ramesh sharma, advocate, for the petitioner. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) the contour of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner-plaintiff-jit kaur daughter of late sh.bhag singh(for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit(annexure p-1) against respondents-defendants-mohinder singh son of late bhag singh and others(for short “the defendants”.) for a decree of declaration to the effect that the sale-deed dated 11.06.1982, allegedly executed by her in respect of the land in dispute, is illegal, unlawful, sham transaction and is not binding on her rights. the contesting defendant nos.2 & 4 refuted the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.2. having framed the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. the trial court rani seema 2014.02.18 11:00 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil revision no.1069 of 2014 2 closed the evidence of the plaintiff by virtue of impugned order dated 15.01.2014.3. aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has 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 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.5. after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, 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 context.6. as is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for a decree of declaration against the defendants, in the manner depicted here-in-above. the bare perusal of the interim order dated 11.04.2013 would reveal that the trial court adjourned the case for evidence of the plaintiff to 03.06.2013, but the file was taken-up on 01.06.2013, as the presiding officer was to proceed on casual leave. thereafter, the case was transferred to some other court and it was rani seema 2014.02.18 11:00 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil revision no.1069 of 2014 3 adjourned to 14.08.2013 for evidence of the plaintiff by way of order dated 12.08.2013. from the sequence of events narrated in the interim orders, the plaintiff alone cannot be blamed for the delay to conclude her evidence. the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial court, to negate the plea of the plaintiff was that, although sufficient opportunities were granted, but she has failed to conclude her evidence. here to me, the trial court appears to have committed a legal error in this regard.7. ex facie, it may be true that, sufficient opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to conclude the evidence, but that ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to close her 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. taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the explanation put-forth, the trial court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude her evidence. if adequate opportunities are not granted to the plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to her case. moreover, no prejudice was going to be caused to the defendants, particularly when, they could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf.8. in the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is partly accepted. consequently, the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 is hereby set aside. the trial court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude her evidence. however, this would be subject to the payment of `10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) as rani seema 2014.02.18 11:00 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil revision no.1069 of 2014 4 compensatory costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants personally. at the same time, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution 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 2014.02.18 11:00 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Revision No.1069 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1069 of 2014 Date of Decision:11.02.2014 Jit Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner-plaintiff-Jit Kaur daughter of Late Sh.Bhag Singh(for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit(Annexure P-1) against respondents-defendants-Mohinder Singh son of Late Bhag Singh and others(for short “the defendants”.) for a decree of declaration to the effect that the sale-deed dated 11.06.1982, allegedly executed by her in respect of the land in dispute, is illegal, unlawful, sham transaction and is not binding on her rights. The contesting defendant Nos.2 & 4 refuted the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

2. Having framed the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. The trial Court Rani Seema 2014.02.18 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1069 of 2014 2 closed the evidence of the plaintiff by virtue of impugned order dated 15.01.2014.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has 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 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.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, 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 context.

6. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for a decree of declaration against the defendants, in the manner depicted here-in-above. The bare perusal of the interim order dated 11.04.2013 would reveal that the trial Court adjourned the case for evidence of the plaintiff to 03.06.2013, but the file was taken-up on 01.06.2013, as the Presiding Officer was to proceed on casual leave. Thereafter, the case was transferred to some other court and it was Rani Seema 2014.02.18 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1069 of 2014 3 adjourned to 14.08.2013 for evidence of the plaintiff by way of order dated 12.08.2013. From the sequence of events narrated in the interim orders, the plaintiff alone cannot be blamed for the delay to conclude her evidence. The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, to negate the plea of the plaintiff was that, although sufficient opportunities were granted, but she has failed to conclude her evidence. Here to me, the trial Court appears to have committed a legal error in this regard.

7. Ex facie, it may be true that, sufficient opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to conclude the evidence, but that ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to close her 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. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the explanation put-forth, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude her evidence. If adequate opportunities are not granted to the plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to her case. Moreover, no prejudice was going to be caused to the defendants, particularly when, they could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf.

8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude her evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as Rani Seema 2014.02.18 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1069 of 2014 4 compensatory costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants personally. At the same time, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution 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 2014.02.18 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh