IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1983/2009 Date of Decision:16.4.2009. Mandeep Singh and another ..........Petitioners. Versus Tara Singh ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Ashok K.Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 31.3.2009(Annexure P/8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Patiala, whereby the evidence of the petitioners-defendants has been closed by Court order. Facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff Tara Singh, on 17.11.2003, instituted a suit against petitioners-defendants for recovery of Rs.40,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Since the petitioners-defendants failed to appear despite service they were proceeded against ex parte and finally an ex parte decree was passed against them, vide judgement and decree dated 9.1.2006, which fact came to their knowledge when they received notice in the execution proceedings. The petitioners- defendants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgement and decree dated 9.1.2006. Besides that they also moved another application for stay of execution proceedings, which was declined by the learned Executing Court vide orders dated 21.9.2007. Petitioners challenged the same before this Court by filing C.R.No.5688/2007, in which counsel for the plaintiff-respondent made a concessional statement that he has no objection even if the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed and the ex parte judgement and decree were set aside, subject to certain conditions. CR NO.1983/2009 -2- Accordingly this Court, vide order dated 22.2.2008, set aside the impugned orders dated 21.9.2007 as also the ex parte judgement and decree dated 9.1.2006, subject to the following conditions:- “(i) the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondent-plaintiff on the next date of hearing before the learned trial Court ; (ii)the learned trial Court shall not grant more than two opportunities to the petitiones to lead their evidence; (iii)only one opportunity may be granted to the respondent- plaintiff to lead his rebuttal evidence, if any; and (iv)thereafter it may make an endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible and preferably within eight months.” It appears thereafter the respondent-plaintiff examined one witness on 15.1.2009 and closed his evidence. It is further apparent from the record that thereafter the learned trial Court in terms of condition no.(ii) above granted two opportunities to the petitioners-defendants to lead their evidence on 4/11.2.2009 and 30.3.2009. On 30.3.2009 since no DW was present, the learned Trial Court adjourned the case to 31.3.2009. It is the case of the petitioners-defendants that on 30.3.2009 the petitioners and the defence witness who was to be cross examined did not turn up under the impression that no proceedings would take place on account of a resolution passed by the District Bar Association, Patiala that members of the Bar would be unable to attend the Courts work on 30.3.2009 on account of sad demise and cremation of Captain Kanwaljit Singh, Co- operation Minister, Punjab, at Chandigarh The case was taken up on 30.3.2009 and stood adjourned to 31.3.2009 as a last opportunity to conclude defence evidence vide impugned order dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure P/8).. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that due to communication gap the petitioners-defendants could not be apprised of the proceedings CR NO.1983/2009 -3- held on 30.3.2009 and therefore, the learned Trial Court in the light of of the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by this Court, closed defendants' evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and perusing the record,I deem it just and expedient to grant one last opportunity to the petitioners- defendants to conclude their evidence subject to payment of costs as in my opinion, petitioners have shown sufficient cause for not producing DW2 on 31.3.2009 for his cross examination. For the reasons stated above, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure P/8) is set aside and petitioners-defendants are granted one last opportunity to conclude their evidence, at their own responsibility, on the next date of hearing or on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs, to be paid to the respondent-plaintiff. This order is being passed without issuing any notice to the respondent- plaintiff to avoid unnecessary delay and save him from litigation expenses, who is otherwise being compensated by payment of costs. Dasti, on payment of usual charges. 16.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge