Partly allowed

Nankana Sahib Education Trust v. Buta Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2012CR/2555/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition filed under Article 227, the High Court allowed the petitioner-defendant trust to complete its evidence in a possession suit. The Court directed the trial court to recall the order closing evidence and grant one more opportunity, imposing a cost on the petitioner and warning against further delays.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.3.2012 set aside; trial court directed to grant one final opportunity for evidence; cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed.

Nankana Sahib Education Trust Vs Buta Singh and… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2555 of 2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2555 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 22.5.2012

¶6

Nankana Sahib Education Trust

¶7

..... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Buta Singh alias Harminder Singh and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mrs. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner-defendant no.2 was closed by order of the court.

¶15

The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for possession filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 /plaintiffs against the petitioner and respondent no. 3/ defendants. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionerTrust is imparting education in the area. The suit was filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2/ plaintiffs for possession of land, situated within the revenue estate of village Gill, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, on 24.4.2004. The land in question is in possession of the petitioner since 1958 and a college has been constructed thereon. The plaintiffs are basing their claim only on the basis of jamabandi for the year 2000-2001. Evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order of the court on 23.2.2011. Thereafter, they filed application for review of order dated 23.2.2011, which was ultimately dismissed on 22.10.2011 as not maintainable. The order closing the evidence of the plaintiffs was never challenged by them. It was submitted that the case was

¶17

Civil Revision No. 2555 of 2012

¶18

(2)

¶19

fixed for the first time for the evidence of the petitioner/ defendant only on 7.11.2011, on which date one DW was examined, however, his crossexamination was deferred to 9.12.2011. On 9.12.2011, as no evidence of the defendants was present, the case was adjourned to 22.12.2011. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 27.1.2012, 17.2.2012, but due to certain unavoidable reasons, no DW was present. It was further submitted that the petitioner is an Educational Society and is not interested in delaying the proceedings. The case was delayed by the plaintiffs themselves by taking seven years for leading evidence. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete its entire evidence on that date.

¶20

The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record.

¶21

The petitioner cannot be stated to be at fault solely, considering the zimni orders reproduced in the paper-book. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2004. Their evidence was closed by order of the court on 23.2.2011. Application filed by them for review of order dated 23.2.2011 was dismissed on 22.10.2011 and thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner started only on 7.11.2011. As a matter of indulgence, the petitioner deserves to be granted one opportunity to produce its evidence.

¶22

Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 16.3.2012, closing the evidence of the petitioner-defendant no. 1, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing its evidence on the date to be fixed. The same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as cost to the plaintiffs, by way of bank draft. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case it fails to complete its entire evidence on the date so fixed by the trial court.

¶23

The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated

¶24

above.

¶25

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶26

22.5.2012 vs.

Nankana Sahib Education Trust v. Buta Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nankana Sahib Education Trust v. Buta Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Vs S.B.I. & Ors.

Mahender Vs Kanta Devi and Anr.

Pritam Kaur Vs Sarabjit Kaur & Anr.

Gurdev Singh Sehmy Vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust

Satish Kumar Vs Ritu Rani

Jagdish Lal Ahuja Vs Sarv Dyal