C. R. No. 57 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 57 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 08, 2010 Devender Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Neelam and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. P. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, thereby closing the evidence of the petitioner by court order, except cross- examination of the plaintiff PW, for which the case was adjourned to 28.08.2009. However, on 28.08.2009, the petitioner-plaintiff did not appear for cross-examination and the case has now been adjourned to 19.01.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that evidence of the petitioner was closed after granting just two opportunities by the trial court. For this reason, the petitioner may be entitled to one more opportunity. However, the petitioner has to be subjected to heavy cost C. R. No. 57 of 2010 2 because of his conduct in delaying the disposal of the suit. The instant revision petition has been preferred almost nine months after the passing of the impugned order, for which there is no explanation whatsoever. Not only that, the petitioner also did not appear in the trial court for his cross- examination on 28.08.2009. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if notice is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead his entire remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the court for summoning evidence, but no further opportunity shall be granted on the ground of non-service of the witness or non-appearance of the witness inspite of service or any other reason. January 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE