Civil Revision No. 7610 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7610 of 2011 Date of decision. 08.12.2011 Kuldeep Singh .... Petitioner Versus Dharam Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.29321-CII of 2011 The application praying for exemption from filing certified copies of annexures P-1 and P-2 is allowed. CR No. 7610 of 2011 Kuldeep Singh, one of the plaintiffs is in revision petition before this court under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed by order of the court. Civil Revision No. 7610 of 2011 --2-- The plaintiff Kuldeep Singh and others had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.14,76,250/- and in the alternative for cancellation of some sale deeds claiming them to be without consideration. On 17.11.2011 it was the plaintiffs, who were to lead their evidence. On that day, learned trial court passed four orders in the order sheet, first at 11.30 AM, second at 2.00 PM, third at 2.30 PM and last at 3.15 PM. In the first and third orders, it is mentioned that when the case was called, the plaintiff appeared and requested the court to keep the case pending on the ground that the witness had gone to call his counsel. When the case was called lastly at 3.15 PM and the same plea was raised by the plaintiffs, learned trial court took note of the conduct of the plaintiff and concluded therefrom that the plaintiffs do not want to produce the witnesses for their cross-examination. Learned trial court even inferred from his conduct that no witness was present. So keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiffs and further concluding that the plaintiffs wanted to delay the matter, the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. I have heard Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that learned trial court was not justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiffs. According to him, the orders made on 17.11.2011 clearly show that the plaintiff was appearing in the court and wanted the case to be kept pending for his counsel to appear. He has prayed for grant of one opportunity for the evidence of the plaintiffs though subject to Civil Revision No. 7610 of 2011 --3-- payment of costs. The parties in rural side are mostly illiterate. Even if they are literate, they do not know the intricacies of the law and fear to allow the proceedings to be conduced in the absence of their counsel. On three occasions when the case was called by learned trial court, the plaintiff came present. The question was as to whether what he was saying was true or false. Learned trial court concluded that whatever he was saying was false. Though there was no material before learned trial court to raise this inference, even if this was the inference available from the conduct of the plaintiff, adjournment could still be granted and the injustice to the other party could be redressed by imposing costs on the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the closing of the evidence of the plaintiffs on 17.11.2011 when the plaintiff was present and was seeking time to wait for his counsel, cannot be held justified. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence at own responsibility. 08.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge