Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sucha Singh And Others vs Balbir Singh And Others on 17 February, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.1182 of 2014 & other cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) Civil Revision No.1182 of 2014
Sucha Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents
(2) Civil Revision No.1192 of 2014
Sucha Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Janakbir Singh and others .....Respondents
(3) Civil Revision No.1193 of 2014
Sucha Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Wasan Singh and others .....Respondents
Date of Decision:17.02.2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As, identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions bearing Civil Revision No.1182 of 2014, titled as Sucha Singh and others Versus Balbir Singh and others(for brevity "the 1st case"), Civil Revision No.1192 of 2014, titled as Sucha Singh and others Versus Janakbir Singh Rani Seema 2014.02.21 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1182 of 2014 & other cases 2 and others(for short "the 2nd case") and Civil Revision No.1193 of 2014, titled as Sucha Singh and others Versus Wasan Singh and others(for brevity "the 3rd case"), arising out of the similar impugned decisions, by way of this common order, to avoid the repetition.
2. The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petitions and emanating from the record is that, initially respondent Nos.1&2
-plaintiffs-Balbir Singh & Lakhwinder Singh sons of Bahadur Singh(for brevity "the plaintiffs") have instituted the civil suit(Annexure P-1) for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owner and in possession of the land in question, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining petitioners-Sucha Singh son of Bahadur Singh & others and proforma respondent No.3-Hardev Singh son of Raghubir Singh-defendants(for short "the defendants"), from forcibly dispossessing them from the land in dispute. Similar suits were filed by the plaintiffs (therein) against the defendants, which is subject matter of 2nd and 3rd petitions. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs, filed the written statement(Annexure P-2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaints and prayed for dismissal of the suits.
3. Ultimately, the cases remained pending till 04.07.2013 for evidence of the plaintiffs and the same were adjourned to 11.07.2013 for evidence of the defendants for the first time. The trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants by means of impugned orders dated 28.01.2014(Annexure P-3).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-defendants have preferred Rani Seema 2014.02.21 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1182 of 2014 & other cases 3 the present petitions, 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 notices to the respondents-plaintiffs in all the three suits, 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 plaintiffs 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 counsel for the petitioners- defendants, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petitions deserve to be partly accepted in this respect.
7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit(Annexure P-1) for a decree of declaration and possession against the defendants, in the manner depicted here-in-above. Having framed the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the cases were slated for evidence of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs closed their evidence and the cases were listed for evidence of the defendants for 11.07.2013 for the first time, vide order dated 04.07.2013. The trial Court closed the evidence of the defendants by virtue of impugned orders dated 28.01.2014(Annexure P-3). The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence was that, Rani Seema 2014.02.21 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1182 of 2014 & other cases 4 sufficient opportunities were granted, but the defendants have failed to conclude their evidence. Here to me, the trial Court appears to have committed a legal error in this regard.
8. Ex facie, it may be true that, sufficient opportunities were granted to the defendants to complete the evidence, but that ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to close their evidence. It is not a matter of dispute that the defendants have already tendered into evidence the affidavits of DWs and they were to be cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiffs. The perusal of the interim order dated 29.07.2013 would reveal that two DWs were examined-in-chief and their cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiffs. Likewise, it is clear from the interim order dated 15.10.2013 that the Presiding Officer was availing joining time and as per order dated 07.12.2013, he proceeded on casual leave. In that eventuality, the defendants alone cannot be blamed in this relevant connection. 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. If adequate opportunities are not granted to the defendants, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. Moreover, no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiffs, particularly when, they could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, issues involved in the cases and the explanation put- forth, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendants, to conclude their evidence.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are Rani Seema 2014.02.21 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1182 of 2014 & other cases 5 partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) in all the three petitions are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to give one more effective opportunity to the defendants, to complete their evidence in all the pointed three cases. However, this would be subject to the payment of `5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as compensatory costs in each case, to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs personally. Above all, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the cases.
Needless to mention that the instant order has been rendered only in the peculiar facts & special circumstances of these cases and would not be relevant precedent in any other case.
February 17, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Rani Seema
2014.02.21 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh