Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Kaur And Another vs Sukhwinder Singh And Others on 2 June, 2011
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Civil Revision No.3779 of 2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.3779 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: June 2, 2011
Nasib Kaur and another
.....Petitioners
v.
Sukhwinder Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
........
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.14820-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3779 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.5.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Talwandi Sabo, vide which evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs has been closed by order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.
Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioners-plaintiffs alongwith pro forma respondents no.5 to 8 filed a suit for declaration that they are owners and in joint possession of the land measuring 1/5th share of 240 kanals 6 marlas and that transfer of ownership in favour of respondents-defendants no.1 to 4 by their father Harnek Singh Civil Revision No.3779 of 2011(O&M) -2- is null, void and not binding on the rights of petitioners-plaintiffs on the plea that suit property is a part of Joint Hindu Family and ancestral property. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed on 23.12.2010 and the case was adjourned for evidence of plaintiffs for 10.2.2011 and, however, when no evidence was present on that day, the same was adjourned to 11.3.2011, on which date as well when no evidence was present, the case was adjourned to 20.4.2011. On 20.4.2011, two witnesses were examined and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence for 9.5.2011 when the impugned order was passed closing evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs that though four opportunities were granted to petitioners- plaintiffs by learned trial Court, however, very short dates were given and petitioners-plaintiffs could not procure the necessary revenue record from the Patwari, which is essential for just decision of the present suit, as character of the land in dispute is to be decided. Hence, it is contended that said evidence is essential for the decision of the case. It is further contended that one opportunity be granted to petitioners-plaintiffs for producing copy of revenue record.
In view of these facts, though sufficient opportunities were granted by learned trial Court to petitioners-plaintiffs to adduce evidence, however, as the revenue record is necessary for deciding the controversy in dispute and the same cannot be fabricated, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioners-plaintiffs and the other party can be compensated by way of cost.
Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned Civil Revision No.3779 of 2011(O&M) -3- order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioners-plaintiffs to produce copies of revenue record, i.e., jamabandi etc. subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent.
However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:-
" We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur."
However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this Civil Revision No.3779 of 2011(O&M) -4- revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order.
2.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge