MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J. - (1.) THE contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner -Chaterbhuj son of Surjeet Sigh and other proforma respondent Nos.2 to 4 -plaintiffs(for brevity ''the plaintiffs '') have instituted the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining respondent No.1 -defendant -Smt.Shyambati wife of Bhagirath(for short ''the contesting defendant '') from interfering in their peaceful possession over the property in dispute. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiffs, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(2.) HAVING completed the evidence of the plaintiffs, ultimately, the case was adjourned for evidence of the defendant. The trial Court did not adjourn the case, to enable the plaintiffs, to cross -examine the defendant's witnesses and termed the cross -examination as 'Nil' vide impugned order dated 12.12.2013(Annexure P -1). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner -plaintiff has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AT the very outset, in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent No.1 -defendant, in order to save her from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when she can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, however, in case, respondent No.1 -defendant is aggrieved by the order, in any manner, she would be at liberty to file a petition to recall this order without accepting the costs.;