Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Vishal Jain And Another on 15 January, 2009
Civil Revision No.6736 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6736 of 2008
Date of decision : 15.1.2009
State of Haryana and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Vishal Jain and another ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Jayender S.Chandail, Addl.Advocate General,
Haryana for the petitioners
Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The essential, and valid as well, grievance of the defendants- petitioners (State of Haryana, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Controller, Civil Defence, Ambala City, S.D.O., Public Health Department No.3 and Punjab Wakf Board) is as under:-
On 25.8.2008, the matter was fixed for recording of evidence of defendants-petitioners. On that date, three DWs are present. Out of them, the testimony of one DW was recorded (in lieu of the examination- in-chief) affidavits of two other witnesses namely Gurnam Singh and Din Mohd. were tendered into evidence on that very day, alongwith certain documents which came to be mentioned in the course thereof.
Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendants- petitioners, informed the Court that he would be able to cross-examine those two witnesses only on the next date of hearing in view of the fact that their affidavits were lengthy and several documents were annexed Civil Revision No.6736 of 2008 -2- **** therewith. For recording the cross-examination upon those witnesses, the matter was adjourned to 29.8.2008. At the same time, the learned Trial Court ordered the closure of (the other part of ) defendants' evidence by noticing that "sufficient effective opportunities have already been granted to defendants to conclude their entire evidence but in vain." In that context, learned Court also noticed that closure of evidence was being ordered "with a view to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to curtail old pendency".
The precise grievance of defendants-petitioners is that the learned Trial Court acted unjustly and in haste because once the matter was being adjourned for the cross-examination upon two DWs, there was no understandable reason why the closure of evidence had to be ordered on that very date.
In that context, it is argued that the suit property which had been encroached upon by the plaintiff-respondent is valuable public property which was meant for construction of "water static tank and this is to be used in emergency or any any enemy attack by incendary bomb".
Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, resists the plea aforementioned by arguing that the defendants-petitioners having availed of sufficient opportunities for producing evidence, cannot be heard to press for another adjournment.
In the matter of adjudication of a controversy on the judicial side, it is pious responsibility of the Court to afford adequate opportunities to the parties to make their presentation by adducing evidence in support of their respective pleas at the trial. The approach adopted by the Court must also be equitable in character. This would be particularly so when the property in issue is public in character. Once the learned Trial Court had Civil Revision No.6736 of 2008 -3- **** decided to adjourn the matter for cross-examination being directed at the two witnesses, it ought to have adopted an approach of expected judicial benevolence by refraining from closing defendants' evidence on that very date. If, however, no witness other than the aforementioned two would have turned up on the adjourned date, the order regarding closure of evidence would have seemed perfectly appropriate and legally justified.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 25.8.2008 directing closure of defendants' evidence shall stand set aside. The defendants-petitioners shall be entitled to adduce whatever evidence they want to on the next date of hearing.
January 15, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE