Civil Revision No. 6025 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6025 of 2011 Date of decision. 29.09.2011(O&M) Om Parkash .... Petitioner Versus Dharambir and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.23989-CII of 2011 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. CR No.6025 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hansi whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. The suit brought by Om Parkash, plaintiff has been for possession of a portion measuring 27x22 square feet, which is a part of khasra No.174//3(0-3) measuring 3 marlas on the basis of title claiming that the said portion has been encroached upon by the defendants. The Civil Revision No. 6025 of 2011 --2-- case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 24.08.2011. As no evidence of the plaintiff was present on that day, the evidence was closed because it was the last opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his evidence and no good ground was made out to further adjourn the case for evidence of the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the plaintiff has brought this revision-petition. I have heard Mr. Abhishek Yadav, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself had been left to be examined in this case. According to him, one opportunity at own responsibility may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence. According to him, if it is not done, it would result in injustice to the petitioner. The impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi on 24.08.2011 is very short. It is mentioned in the order that no good ground was made out to further adjourn the case for the evidence of the plaintiff. It would have been better for the trial court to have mentioned the ground made out for further adjournment and give its reasons for holding that it was not a good ground to support the prayer. The suit had not become old. It appears from the record that the same was instituted only on 20.08.2010. Civil Revision No. 6025 of 2011 --3-- So the circumstances make out a case for grant of one more opportunity to the petitioner for leading his evidence at his own responsibility. The revision petition is consequently allowed and the order dated 24.08.2011 passed by learned trial court is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to lead evidence at his own responsibility, for which one clear opportunity would be given to the plaintiff, subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs, to the other side. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 29.09.2011 dinesh