Civil Revision No.6839 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6839 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:27.10.2010 Hira Singh .....petitioner Versus Angrej Kaur & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Hardip Singh,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 06.08.2010, whereby the trial Court refused to summon the witness namely Gurdev Singh by coercive methods. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid witness was summoned through the court's assistance and he was served. Despite service, the aforesaid witness failed to appear before the court and therefore it was the duty of the court to secure the presence of the aforesaid witness by taking coercive methods. However, the trial Court failed to exercise its power vested in it and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be attractive but is without any merit. A perusal of the various zimni orders produced on record by the petitioner shows that vide order Civil Revision No.6839 of 2010(O & M) 2 dated 12.05.2010, the evidence of the petitioner was to be produced at his own risk and responsibility on 06.08.2010. Thus, in these circumstances, it was for the petitioner himself to secure the presence of his witness and no fault can be found in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.10.2010 neenu