Surinder Kaur vs Swaranjit Kaur and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are, that Swaranjit Kaur widow of Gursev Singh and her children-respondent-plaintiffs(for brevity "the plaintiffs") filed the suit against her mother-in-law Surinder Kaur widow of Karnail Singh-petitioner-defendant(for short "the defendant") for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount for the month of June 2001, for permanently fixing the maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per month and creating charge of maintenance amount on the land depicted therein, invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Having completed the evidence of the plaintiffs, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of the defendant and the trial Court closed her evidence, by means of impugned order dated 06.06.2011.

Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent-plaintiffs, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect.

As is clear from the impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court was that, the suit is pending since 27.09.2010 for evidence of the defendant and she availed many opportunities including the last opportunity, but did not conclude her evidence.

Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of litigation and the fact that the defendant is an old widow, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the defendant, to conclude her evidence. The production of such evidence is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. To me, if the opportunity is not granted to the defendant, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to her case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiffs, particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. More so, when the case is still fixed for rebuttal evidence.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the defendant, to conclude her evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-defendant to the plaintiffs. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiffs. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance.