Punjab-Haryana High Court
Badal Singh And Anr. vs Amar Kaur And Ors. on 9 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)140PLR789
JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two revision petitions, namely, C.R. No. 6817 of 2001 and C.R. No. 64 of 2002 being the connected petitions.
2. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioners by the learned trial Court on 1.4.1997. The petitioners filed an application on 31.10.1998 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 1.4.1997. Issues were framed. In the meantime, Manpreet Singh and Kamal Suresh, who had purchased the property from the present petitioners filed an application for being impleaded as a party in the said application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. by the present petitioners. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.3.2001. Issues were framed and the petitioners were to lead the evidence. The evidence of the petitioners was closed by the learned trial Court on 19.11.2001 against with C.R. No. 64 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioners. However, the file was adjourned for the evidence of purchasers, Manpreet Singh and Kamal Suresh, purchasers from the present petitioners. Then the petitioners filed an application on 11.12.2001 for re-calling the order dated 19.11.2001, but the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2001 against which C.R. No. 6817 of 2001 has been filed.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that if one opportunity is given to them, they will produce and close their evidence at their own responsibility.
4. Relies on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., J.T. 2003(6) S.C. 465 and Sushil Kumar Sabbarwal v. Gurpreet Singh and Ors., (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 382 (S.C.).
5. This prayer was opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the plea that the litigation is going on between the parties since 1992. He further submits that earlier the petitioners were given one opportunity by this Court vide order dated 4.1.2002 passed in C.R. No. 64 of 2002 ex parte. It was also submitted that the opportunity was got by the petitioners by not disclosing certain facts and after the real picture was brought into the notice of this Court, the ex parte order dated 4.1.2002 was withdrawn. It was also submitted that since the subsequent purchasers, namely, Manpreet Singh and Kamal Suresh are leading evidence on the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and since the petitioners have already sold their interests to the subsequent purchasers, therefore, they are not entitled to any opportunity for leading any evidence for setting aside the ex parte decree.
6. The settled law is that in the interest of justice the parties should be permitted to contest the case on merits instead of closing the doors on technical grounds. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice and for expeditious disposal of the case, if the petitioners are granted one opportunity to close their evidence. It would, however, be subject to heavy cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The parties may appear in the learned trial court on 2.3.5.2005 and make the payment of costs for onward payment to respondent No. 1 i.e. the plaintiff. On that date, the learned trial Court shall afford one opportunity to the present petitioners for producing and closing the evidence. If the petitioners fail to make the payment of costs or fail to produce and close their evidence as stipulated above, then they will not be entitled to any further adjournement.
7. However, the petitioners and the purchasers from them shall not alienate the property in any manner till the litigation on the suit property becomes final.
A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.