Pritam Kaur and Others vs Bharpur Singh and Others

Sabina, J.—Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land forcibly and illegally. A declaration has also been sought that the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, (Tehsildar), Dhuri in partition proceedings was illegal, null and void.

Notice of the suit was issued to the Defendants.

On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial:

Whether Plaintiff are entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP

Whether Plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to the effect that order dated 17.11.2005 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Dhuri in partition proceedings No. 48 dated 08.08.2005 is illegal, null & void and without jurisdiction and having no effect qua the rights of Plaintiff? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether Plaintiff have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether Plaintiffs are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

Whethersuit is barred or hit by principle of res judicata? OPD

Relief.

After framing of issues on 31.07.2010 the case was adjourned for Plaintiffs evidence. On 01.10.2010 Plaintiffs� evidence was closed and the case was adjourned for Defendants evidence for 09.10.2010. Thereafter on the said date, the case was adjourned for Defendants evidence for 16.10.2010 as no Defendants witnesses were present on the said date. On 16.10.2010 the case was adjourned for Defendants evidence for 23.10.2010, as again, on the said date no witnesses were present. On 23.10.2010, the impugned order passed. Hence, the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the Petitioners-Defendants to conclude their evidence at their own risk and responsibility. Now the case is listed for hearing on 15.01.2011 before the trial Court.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 23.10.2010 reads as under:

No DW is present. Date requested. Heard. From the perusal of file reveals that Defendants have already availed sufficient opportunities to conclude their evidence, but failed to conclude the same. As such, evidence of Defendants is closed by order. Now, to come up on 29.10.2010 for arguments.

In the present case, the case was adjourned for Defendants� evidence by giving a very short dates and consequently the Defendants have been unable to lead their evidence.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient and in the interest of justice to grant one opportunity to the Defendants to conclude their evidence at their own risk and responsibility. In case the Defendants are allowed to lead their evidence, the dispute between the parties would be disposed of on merits.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.10.2010 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the Petitioners/Defendants to conclude their evidence and adjourn the case on 15.01.2011. The Defendants shall not be granted any further opportunity and shall lead their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility on the date fixed by the learned trial Court for their evidence. The trial Court shall give four weeks� time to the Petitioners/Defendants to enable them to lead their evidence.