CR-1391-2017 (O&M)

1

230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-1391-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision : 29.03.2022

Balwant Singh Randhawa & Another

.....Petitioners

versus

Brij Bhushan Bansal & Others

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. B. S. Khehar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

ALKA SARIN, J.

Heard in physical mode.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Trial

Court whereby it adjourned the case for consideration on the application

moved by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 for production of documents

and did not close their evidence.

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that in August 2010

the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit under Section 92 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for removal of the defendant Nos.1 and 2-

petitioners as Secretary and Vice Chairman of the Trust namely the Desh

Bhagat College (Regd.) Bardwal, Dhuri, District Sangrur. The said suit was

also for rendition of accounts and for permanent injunction. The defendant

YOGESH SHARMA

2022.03.29 17:49

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

CR-1391-2017 (O&M)

2

Nos.1 and 2-petitioners are contesting the suit.

On 05.03.2013, when the suit was fixed for evidence of the

plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and it was a last opportunity, an application

(Annexure P-1) was filed by them for directing defendant Nos.1 and 2-

petitioners and defendant-respondent No.5 to produce the account books of

all the institutions run by Desh Bhagat College Trust since 01.04.1990 till

date and also to produce the resolution and constitution. This application

was contested by the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners. Vide order dated

10.05.2013 (Annexure P-3) the Trial Court closed the evidence of the

plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 holding inter-alia “Hence, finding no

justification and keeping in view the fact that number of opportunities have

already been availed by the plaintiffs in contradiction to the provisions of

Order 16 Rule 1 CPC and Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, I do not find any ground to

adjourn the case again for the same purpose. Hence, evidence of the

plaintiffs is closed by order”.

The plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the order dated

10.05.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Trial Court by filing CR No.3601

of 2013. Vide order dated 28.01.2016 (Annexure P-4) this Court allowed CR

No.3601 of 2013 and set aside the order dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P-3)

passed by the Trial Court.

It is averred that the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners filed

SLP No.18605 of 2016 against the order dated 28.01.2016 (Annexure P-4)

passed by this Court. Vide order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) the

Supreme Court disposed off the SLP holding as under :

“We are not inclined to interfere with the order

passed by the High Court. However, at the same time,

YOGESH SHARMA

2022.03.29 17:49

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

CR-1391-2017 (O&M)

3

we find that the respondents have taken enough

opportunities for leading the evidence. In these

circumstances, the respondents are afforded one more

opportunity for this purpose and the evidence shall be

led on the next date which is fixed by the Trial Court

failing which the evidence shall stand closed.

The special leave petition is disposed of in these

terms.”

The suit before the Trial Court came up for hearing on

27.01.2017 when the impugned order was passed adjourning the case for

consideration on the application for production of documents moved by the

plaintiff-re