Petitioner challenged an order closing his evidence. The High Court observed that defendants had admitted ownership by the Gram Panchayat, making further evidence unnecessary, and dismissed the revision.
Petition was dismissed; the impugned order closing defendant evidence was not interfered with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 1406 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1406 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.3.2012
Tara Chand
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Parmod Kumar and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.2.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the evidence of the defendants (petitioner and respondents No. 8 to 10), was closed by order of the court.
The proceedings arise out of a suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 7-plaintiffs against the petitioner and respondents No. 8 to 10 seeking a restrain against the defendants/petitioner and respondents No. 8 and 9 from forcibly occupying plot No. 477, owned and possessed by Gram Panchayat, Bandaheri, Tehsil and District Hissar and being used by the inhabitants of the said village for the purpose of social gatherings and playing of children and for raising any construction thereon. The learned court below had closed the evidence of the defendants vide impugned order while observing that they had already availed of six effective opportunities to lead their evidence, but failed to conclude the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the written statement filed by Gram Panchayat-defendant No. 4 was adopted by defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit. A specific stand was taken therein that the property in dispute is owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat and
Civil Revision No. 1406 of 2012 [2]
defendants No. 1 to 3 are not in possession of any part thereof. The prayer in the suit is for restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 from forcibly occupying the land in dispute, which is owned by the Gram Panchayat. Once the petitioner as well as respondents No. 8 and 9/defendants No. 1 to 3 have already taken a stand in the written statement that they are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property and further that the same is owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat, in my opinion, no evidence is required to be led by them as they are not disputing the claim set up by the plaintiffs in the suit.
In view of the above, no interference is called for with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
20.3.2012 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether closure of defendant evidence is maintainable where they have already admitted ownership and possession of the disputed property in their written statement.
Whether the High Court can refuse to allow defendants to lead evidence when their admission negates their case.
Tara Chand
Parmod Kumar
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
