Civil Revision No. 7583 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7583 of 2011 Date of decision. 08.12.2011 M/s Hanson Plastics Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 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? Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is plaintiff's revision brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.11.2011 (Annexure P-1 ) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar vide which the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the court as also the order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) vide which the application for re-calling the order dated 07.11.2011 has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 7583 of 2011 --2-- The plaintiff had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the bill raised by the defendants upon the plaintiff is illegal. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the premises of the plaintiff. In the said suit, the plaintiff was to lead its evidence on 7.11.2011. When no evidence of the plaintiff was available and it was last opportunity to the plaintiff to lead its entire evidence, learned trial court closed the plaintiff's evidence. Learned trial court has also noticed that it was one of the oldest cases pending in the court and the plaintiff had already availed numerous opportunities to conclude its evidence. I have heard Mr. R.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for ad-interim injunction was decided by learned trial court and thereafter in the appeal preferred, the record of learned trial court was requisitioned, which had been received back only on 27.01.2011. According to him, no inordinate delay has been caused by the plaintiff in leading its evidence because in the meanwhile on three dates, the trial court was not there and thereafter on 23.09.2011, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte and the ex-parte proceedings were set aside only on 20.10.2011. It is submitted by him that only one official witness remains to be examined on behalf of the petitioner and if the plaintiff is not permitted to examine him, it shall stand greatly prejudiced. Civil Revision No. 7583 of 2011 --3-- I have gone through the order sheets extracted in the grounds of revision and find much of the time, even after the receipt of the file from the appellate court on 27.11.2011, to have not been consumed by the plaintiff for its evidence. On three occasions, learned trial court was not there and some of the adjournments were granted on account of the application filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. So these circumstances show that the plaintiff was not trying to delay the proceedings of the case. In these circumstances, it clearly appears that the plaintiff has not been given adequate opportunity to produce its evidence. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I do not find that learned trial court has been justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, I direct learned trial court to give one clear opportunity to the petitioner to lead its evidence. Learned trial court is further directed to give dasti summons of any official witness to the petitioner, if diet money for the witness stands deposited or is deposited in the meanwhile. 08.12.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE