IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6976 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 27.11.2009 Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioner versus Shiv Chand ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order dated 08.10.2009, whereby the evidence of the petitioner (plaintiff in suit) has been closed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that apart from himself, the petitioner had to examine only one witness who was duly served but who did not appear. He further states that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he would lead his entire evidence on his own responsibility. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter was fixed for 26.11.2009 when the respondent-defendant made a statement that he did not want to lead any evidence and the case is fixed for today for consideration. In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to conclude his entire CR No.6976 of 2009 (O&M) -2- evidence on one date which may be fixed on his own responsibility and thereafter due opportunity would be granted to the respondent to lead his rebuttal evidence, if required. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the ld. Trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence on his own responsibility with subsequent due opportunity to the respondent to lead his evidence in rebuttal. The respondent would be entitled to cost of Rs.5,000/- in the shape of bank draft from the petitioner. This revision petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Secretary. November 27, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE