Rattan Singh and Others vs Bhim Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hisar whereby evidence of the petitioners-defendants has been closed by court order and order dated 10.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hisar whereby application moved by the petitioners for review of the order dated 27.11.2013 has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present petition are to the effect that respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of partition with regard to land measuring 6 kanals 4 marlas situated in khewat No. 585, khatoni No. 745 as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07, situated in the revenue estate of village Kharar, Tehsil and District Hisar. Upon notice, the petitioners put in appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. On pleadings of parties, issues were framed. On 26.09.2013, evidence of respondents No. 1 and 2 was closed. On 23.11.2013, the petitioners moved an application for summoning of four witnesses. Out of them, three witnesses were present and examined as DW 1 to DW 3. However, one witness i.e. concerned Clerk of Bhumi Daan Yagya Board, D.C. Office, Hisar was not present, but without looking into the efforts made by the petitioners, the trial Court has closed the evidence of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 27.11.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners also moved an application for recalling the order dated 27.11.2013 which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.12.2013.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the efforts being made by the petitioners for summoning of the witnesses. Learned counsel further contends that two days prior to 27.11.2013, husband of petitioner No. 5-Ram Rati expired, therefore, the petitioners could not come in Court on 27.11.2013. One opportunity to lead evidence may be granted to the petitioners-defendants.

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners could not attend the Court as two days prior to date fixed, husband of petitioner No. 5- Ram Rati expired. It may be noted here that in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that notwithstanding the deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A of CPC, the Court has inherent powers to permit parties to lead evidence on such terms as may appear to be just. In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one effective opportunity is given to the petitioners-defendants for leading the evidence at their own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Hisar. The petitioners are directed to produce their evidence on the date fixed in trial Court at their own risk and responsibility. In case, the petitioners produce their evidence on the date fixed, the same shall be recorded before leading evidence by respondents No. 1 and 2 in rebuttal.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 27.11.2013 is set aside. Since the order dated 27.11.2013 has been set aside, the impugned order dated 10.12.2013 stands set aside.

The revision petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms without notice to the respondents with a view to avoid delay and expenses considering the nature of order being passed. However, if respondents No. 1 and 2 feel aggrieved against this order, they will be at liberty to approach this Court.