Civil Revision No. 4601 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4601 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.1.2009 Mahesh Chand ..... Petitioner vs Ghan Shyam Dass ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the learned Court below whereby the evidence of the petitioner/ decree- holder was closed by order of the court in an application filed by respondent/ judgment-debtor under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte and a decree was passed on 24.11.2003. Thereafter, the respondent filed application on 15.9.2004 for setting aside of ex-parte decree in which his evidence was completed and the case for evidence of the petitioner/decree-holder was fixed for 3.12.2007. After that number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence. However, on account of failure to lead any evidence, it was closed by order of the court vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date the last opportunity was given to lead the evidence, wife of one of the witnesses was admitted in hospital for operation and mother-in-law of the other witness had expired and it was on account of these circumstances that the witnesses could not be produced for getting their statements recorded. In case one opportunity is granted, he will complete his entire evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence and even subject to payment of costs also. But he has failed to lead evidence. The petitioner is not entitled to any further opportunity. In fact, the petitioner is trying to delay the matter. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Civil Revision No. 4601 of 2008 (2) No doubt, the petitioner has been granted as many as eight opportunities starting from 3.12.2007 to 25.8.2008 to lead his evidence. However, the fact remains that on the last date when the evidence was to be led by the petitioner, two witnesses were facing difficulty due to illness and bereavement in the family. This can be set to be a ground for which the default of not completing evidence on the last opportunity granted by the court to the petitioner to lead evidence can be condoned and further opportunity could be granted in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner now shall be granted one opportunity to complete his entire evidence subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. 28.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge