Civil Revision No.388 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.388 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 20, 2011 Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner v. Yogesh Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.1530-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.388 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.1.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar, vide which evidence of petitioner-defendant no.1 has been closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property in dispute to the extent of more than their share or any specific portion of the same and also from interfering into peaceful possession over the property in dispute was filed by respondent no.1- plaintiff against petitioner-defendant no.1 and proforma respondent nos.2 to 4. The suit was contested by the present petitioner. Issues were framed. Evidence of plaintiff was closed and the case was fixed for evidence of defendants. Civil Revision No.388 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Statement of petitioner was recorded. He was also partly cross- examined on behalf of the plaintiff on 14.1.2011. However, the case was deferred for further cross-examination of this witness as well as for remaining evidence of the defendants for 17.1.2011. On 17.1.2011, the petitioner-defendant no.1 could not appear as he being chronic patient developed complications all of a sudden and he had to rush to Delhi for getting him treated and for that purpose, he also moved an application for adjournment before learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being seriously ill and hence he was having sufficient ground for adjournment and an application in this regard was also filed before learned trial Court. He has placed on record medical record of present petitioner- defendant no.1, as Annexure P1, showing that he is a cancer patient and is getting treatment for the last about two years and this fact has also been mentioned in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court that an application for adjournment was filed on behalf of the petitioner that he was not well and was going to Delhi for treatment. It is also clear from the orders passed by learned trial Court that case remained pending for evidence of plaintiff for about two years and after that the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants. In view of these facts, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant no.1 that learned trial Court should have granted one opportunity to petitioner-defendant no.1 to conclude the evidence. Hence, it has been contended that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner-defendant no.1 to conclude the evidence. In view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-defendant no.1 to conclude his entire evidence at his own responsibility. However, it is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted for the purpose. Disposed of accordingly. 20.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.388 of 2011 (O&M) -3-