SURJIT KAUR Vs. GURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. 5186 of 1999 and 5187 of 1999 as common question is involved in these petitions.

(2.) Vide order dated 22.9.99 passed by Addition Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amloh, plaintiff's evidence was closed. Said order read as follows :

(3.) There was one Maghi Singh, who was father of Surjit Kaur plaintiff. He was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 134 bighas 15 biswas, situated in village Nasrali. He had three daughters namely Harbhajan Kaur, Karnail Kaur and Surjit Kaur. In a family settlement said to have been brought about by Maghi Singh he gave this land in equal shares to his daughters. One Karamjit Kaur claiming herself to be the wife of Maghi Singh set up gift deeds in respect of this property in her favour and also Will dated 5.3.85 alleged to have been executed by Maghi Singh in her favour. Daughters of Maghi Singh challenged the alleged gift deeds and the alleged Will saying that the said Karamjit Kaur was not the wife of Maghi Singh and the gift deeds and Will were fake, false and fabricated documents and daughters of Maghi Singh were owners in possession. That suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.93 declaring that the daughters of Maghi Singh were owners in possession of the land and Karamjit Kaur was not the wife of Maghi Singh and the gift deeds and Will were fake, false and fabricated documents. Karamjit Kaur respondent went in appeal which is pending adjudication before Additional District Judge, Fategarh Sahib. One Balwant Singh (respondent No. 3) herein is Vice President of Municipal Committee, Mandi Gobindgarh and is an influential person. Harbans Singh husband of Harbhajan Kaur daughter of Maghi Singh was working as tractor driver with Balwant Singh. The said Balwant Singh asked Harbans Singh that Harbhajan Kaur was her sisters Karnail Kaur and Surjit Kaur are illiterate and pardanashin ladies and they should execute power of attorney in his favour so that he pursued the litigation between them and Karamjit Kaur as he had good relations with some Advocates. Since Harbans Singh and daughter of Maghi Singh had fiduciary relationship with Balwant Singh they were taken in by him and Surjit Kaur, Harbhajan Kaur and Karnail Kaur daughters of Maghi Singh executed power of attorney in favour of Balwant Singh acting on the said power of attorney, Balwant Singh sold land in favour of his two sons Gurbinder Singh and Harinder Singh at throw away price of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha though the actual rate of the land was Rs. 45,000/- per bigha. Daughters of Maghi Singh became shocked and surprised on coming to know of this fact. They immediately challenged the sale deeds through Civil Suit No.391 of 1994 and civil suit No. 392 of 1994 filed by Surjit Kaur against Gurinder singh etc. and Karnail Kaur against Gurinder Singh etc. Through the impugned order passed in this revision, evidence of Smt. Surjit kaur was closed in Civil Suit No. 391 of 1994. Through the order which has been impugned in Civil Revision No.5187 of 1999, evidence of Smt. Karnail Kaur was closed in Civil suit No.392 of 1994. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had summoned certain witnesses and had deposited diet money for them. It was submitted that there was no reason for the Court to have refused to summon those witnesses and closed the evidence of the plaintiff. It was submitted that issues were framed on 10.1.95. Case was adjourned to 8.4.95 which was declared holiday. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 22.8.95. On 22.8.95 advocates were on strike and the case was adjourned to 21.12.95. On 21.12.95, Presiding Officer was on leave. Case was adjourned to 19.3.96. On 19.3.96 the Court was requested to decide the stay application. On 3.6.96, counsel for the respondents was not present. On 24.6.96 again counsel for the respondents was not present and the proxy made request to the Court that mother of the respondents' counsel was seriously ill and was lying admitted in CMC, Ludhiana. Case was adjourned to 18.5.96, 28.5.96, 11.6.96, 13.8.96 and 14.6.96 for arguments on the stay application. Arguments on the stay application were not heard because of the non-availability of the counsel for the respondents due to his mother's admission in C.M.C., Ludhiana. Arguments on the stay application were heard on 20.9.96 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 16.11.96 for evidence of plaintiff. She deposited diet money for summoning of witnesses and also gave list of witnesses. On 4.2.97, witnesses for the plaintiff were served but they were not present. Case was adjourned to 4.3.97. On 4.3.97 witnesses were present. Case was adjourned to 8.4.97 as the file of the other consolidated suit was not received by the Court. On 8.4.97, 6.5.97, 3.6.97, 5.8.97 and 16.9.97 plaintiffs' witnesses were not present though they had been served. On 25.7.98 respondents moved application for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff saying that the plaintiff had not paid proper Court fee and the case was adjourned to 19.8.98 for reply. On 19.8.98, plaintiff filed reply and the case was adjourned to 2.9.98 and then to 9.9.98 for arguments on the said application. On 9.9.98, arguments were not heard on that application. Case was adjourned to 19.9.98. On 19.9.98 Presiding Officer was on leave. Case was taken up on 22.9.98 for proper orders and adjourned to 7.10.98 when the plaintiff's Counsel made statement in the case that he was ready to pay Court fee and sought one week' time to do the needful. Case was adjourned to 16.10.98. On 28.11.98 and 17.2.99 plaintiff's witnesses were not present though the plaintiff had deposited diet money and process. Adjournment was prayed which was granted and the case was posted to 1.9.99 for evidence of plaintiff., On 1.9.99 no PW was present, application was moved by the defendant that mother of the defendant had expired and the case be adjourned. Case was adjourned to 22.9.99. On 22.9.99, plaintiff's evidence was closed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on 22.9.99 the Court had passed the order closing the plaintiff's evidence before 11 A.M. At 11 A.M. plaintiff moved application that the Court had passed an order at 11 A.M, without waiting for the witnesses as witnesses sought to be produced came bit late. They are now present along with the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that interest of justice should not be allowed to suffer at the altar of procedure. Plaintiff had challenged the said deeds effected by Balwant Singh in favour of his sons on the strength of the power of attorney obtained fraudulently by him from Surjit Kaur, Karnail Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur daughters of Maghi Singh when Harbans Singh husband of Harbajan Kaur daughter of Maghi Singh was working on the tractor of Balwant Singh as driver and Balwant Singh was stand- ing in fiduciary relationship qua Harbhajan Kaur's husband and Harbhajan Kaur etc. It was submitted that it is a suit for declaration filed to have sale deeds executed by Balwant Singh in favour of his own sons on the strength of power of attorney obtained by him by exploiting the confidence, illiteracy and fiduciary relationship of Harbhajan Kaur etc. and Harbhajan Singh with him and it was submitted that it is grave piracy committed by Balwant Singh on Surjit Kaur etc. by exploiting their confidence reposed in him and this act of piracy should not go unscrutinised by the Court. Plaintiff should be given opportunity so that truth is brought to the fore. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there was no equity in favour of the petitioner warranting the grant of adjournment to her for being able to produce her evidence. It was submitted that the record is replete with adjournments granted to the plaintiff so that she could produce her evidence. It was only when the Court felt that the plaintiff had done nothing to the further progress of the suit that the plaintiff's evidence was closed. In support of this submission that no further adjournment could be granted to the plaintiff for enabling her to produce evidence, he drew my attention to Sandeep Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, where it was held that 'plaintiff had already obtained seven adjournments for leading evidence but. he had failed to do so. He was even not present on the date when the impugned order was passed and no sufficient ground had been shown for seeking adjournment. As such, the change in counsel which was done frequently in this case as per the observation made in the impugned order by the learned trial Court was not a sufficient ground to grant the adjournment."