JOGINDER SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Joginder Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain Baldev Singh from interfering in his peaceful possession as owner of house in dispute, which he had constructed 13/14 years ago. In order illegally dispossess the plaintiff, Baldev Singh had got notice issued to from Municipal Committee, Sirsa, which was said to be illegal and wrong. Notice of the suit was given to Baldev Singh and Municipal Committee, Sirsa. Municipal Committee Sirsa filed written statement Baldev Singh filed no written statement in spite of three opportunity - Ultimately, by order dated 22nd February, 1980, his defence was is struck Then the evidence was led in the case. Before the case concluded in the trial Court, Baldev Singh filed an application for permission a to make statement and to produce certified copy of decree dated June, 1974, by which he was declared to be owner of the property. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13th January, 1982 a detailed order. The reason for dismissing the application was that by order dated 22nd February, 1980 the defence has been struck off and he was proceeded ex-parte, and, therefore, he got no right to appear as site-;s or to lead any evidence' Ultimately, by judgment and decree a witness 1801 January, 1982 the suit for permanent injunction was decreed restrain the defendants from interfering in the plaintiff's possession ex t in due course of law. Baldev Singh went up in appeal before the lower appellate Court.

(2.) The lower appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that n if defence is struck off or the defendant is proceeded ex-paste still he has a right to join the proceedings from any stage and has a right to cross-exam+ne the witnesses or to lead evidence to disprove the, plaintiff's case. In this view of the matter, the order of the trial Court dated 13th January, 1982 was certainly illegal.

(3.) It has to be seen whether any useful purpose would be served in sending back the case to the trial Court after setting aside its judgment and decree. Whole of the evidence has already been led. The only thing left out would be to permit defendant No. 1 to appear as a witness and to produce certified copy of decree dated 7th June, 1974 and it can well be done before the lower appellate Court because it would not take much of time. Moreover, in case plaintiff wants to lead any evidence in rebuttal that can also be done before the lower appellate Court. By now, it is well known that multiplicity of proceedings has to be avoided and total remand has to be made only in exceptional cases. The present case is not an exceptional case.