Civil Revision No. 3389 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3389 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 20 , 2010 Amar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Partap Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. This petition has been filed against order closing the evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner states that in fact the affidavits of PW2 and PW3 had been filed but on the date of the impugned order they could not be presented for cross-examination and the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed. Further argues that in fact only two effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence. Further argues that the matter is now fixed for 2.6.2010 and uptil date no evidence has been led by the respondent and that, therefore, it would cause no prejudice to him in case PW2 and PW3 are subjected to cross-examination on 2.6.2010. Undertakes that the petitioner will produce PW2 and PW3 at his own responsibility before the trial Court on the date fixed viz. 2.6.2010. In view Civil Revision No. 3389 of 2010 2 of the conspectus of all the facts brought out above, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is permitted to offer PW2 and PW3 for cross-examination on the date fixed viz. 2.6.2010 at his own responsibility. Learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that the petitioner would not seek any further opportunity for this purpose. Revision is allowed in the above terms. Copy be supplied under signatures of the Court Secretary. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 20, 2010 sunita