Mr. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- By this common Order, both the petitions bearing Civil Revision No.1326 of 2012 and Civil Revision No.1260 of 2012 are being disposed of as the parties in both the cases are same and issue is also same. However, the facts are being extracted from Civil Revision No.1326 of 2012.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the “management, control and possession” of the plaintiff over the Dera Santpura/Gurdwara Santpura along with its connected properties.

3. The claim of the petitioner was with regard to possession of the suit property on the basis of compromise dated 21.03.2000 arrived at between the parties, whereby, the possession and control of the suit properties was given to the petitioner. The said compromise has been stated to be recorded in the Register of Addan Shahi Sabha, Anandpur Sahib which has been witnessed/signed by Mahant Surinder Singh Ji, Mahant Mohinder Singh Ji and Mahant Pritpal Singh Ji. Two witnesses were present and were duly examined but Mahant Dilbag Singh did not appear on account of ill health and neither any person on his behalf along with record was present. Sant Amrit Pal Singh refused to accept notice and his presence was ordered to be secured through bailable warrants. Said Mahant Dilbag Singh sent a request by stating that the record is not traceable and bailable warrants issued were not received back served or otherwise.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to prove the Agreement dated 21.03.2000 by way of secondary evidence which was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to prove the said Agreement by way of secondary evidence. Witnesses namely Mahant Dilbag Singh, Sant Amrit Pal Singh, Mahant Surinder Singh, Mahant Mohinder Singh and Mahant Pritpal Singh were sought to be summoned as their evidence was essential for just and proper decision of the case. The application moved by the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision No.1260 of 2012, which is still pending.

5. The petitioner moved an application for summoning said witnesses to prove compromise and for that diet money and process fee as well as the expenses of witnesses were duly deposited. When Mahant Surinder Singh refused to appear before the trial Court and Mahant Mohinder Singh and Mahant Pritpal Singh refused to accept summons, the application moved by the petitioner to exercise his power to procure the presence of these witnesses has been declined and one additional opportunity was granted to summon these witnesses at his own cost and responsibility. The said order has been challenged by way of filing the present revision petition on the ground that the trial Court should have used coercive steps for procuring the attendance of said witnesses but the same power has not been exercised. The impugned order has been passed by holding that it was for the petitioner to secure presence of witnesses at his own level, whereas, the said witnesses are deliberately refusing to appear before the trial Court without any sufficient reason and two witnesses have refused to accept summons issued by the trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get assistance of the Court to summon these witnesses. Only one additional opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence in spite of the fact that it is the duty of the trial Court to ensure presence of summoned witnesses.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon various judgments titled as Mohinder Singh Arora vs Smt. Harjit Kaur 2001(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 390, Raghbir Singh vs Dina Nath 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 186, Vijay Pal vs Daya Ram 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 740, Uchhab Kanwar vs LRs of Shri Ramswaroop 1995(2) CurLJ 670, Suresh Nath Modi vs Lrs of Jorawarmal 2000(1) CivCC 167 and Babu Singh vs Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh, [2008(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1898 (SC)] : 2008(3)