Avtar Singh vs Amarjit Kaur and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Plaintiff Avtar Singh had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from undermining the

prestige of Gurdwara Gian Sar Sahib as also from interfering in the day to day functions carried out there.

The said suit was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 10.08.2011. As no evidence of the plaintiff was present and learned Additional Civil

Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kapurthala found no justification for further adjournment of the suit for evidence of the plaintiff , his evidence has been closed by

order of the court dated 10.08.2011. Learned trial court had observed that issues had been framed on 29.01.2008 and the plaintiff had failed to

conclude his evidence despite having availed numerous opportunities.

It is the aforesaid order, which is challenged by the plaintiff by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

I have heard Shri Prateek Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had been trying to interfere with the working of the Gurdwara. According

to him, they are forceful persons and the plaintiff is continuing with the suit against them with a lot of difficulty. He has submitted that though the

plaintiff has not been able to conclude his evidence quickly yet he is not to be entirely blamed for the delay in conclusion of his evidence. He has

drawn my attention to three orders passed in this suit dated 19.10.2010, 17.02.2011 and 19.04.2011 (Annexures P-4/1 to P-4/3), which reveal

that the court was not functioning on those days and the file was put up before Duty Judicial Officer. He has submitted that the petitioner requires

only one opportunity to conclude his evidence and has prayed for grant of the same.

A perusal of the orders dated 19.10.2010, 17.02.2011 and 19.04.2011 (Annexures P-4/1 to P-4/3) would show that the court, in which the

suit was pending, was not working on these dates. Keeping in view this fact as also the other circumstances highlighted by learned counsel for the

petitioner, I find that interest of justice would be served if one opportunity would be granted to the plaintiff to lead his evidence.

In these circumstances, I allow the revision petition and set aside the order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P-5) and direct the trial court to give

one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at his own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs. It is made clear

that the plaintiff may be given dasti summons of any witness, if he so desired.