IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4345 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.7.2011 Balbir Singh … Petitioner versus Charat Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction titled Balbir Singh v. Charat Singh. He is aggrieved with order dated 14.6.2011 passed by the Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Jalandhar, by dint of which the additional evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision. Heard. Plaintiff vide order dated 26.5.2011 was allowed one opportunity to lead additional evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/-. The date for the said purpose was fixed as 14.6.2011, i.e. the date when the impugned order has been passed. The only argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner wants to examine the concerned official of the Revenue Department to show that on 25.5.2005, Gurmeet Singh Nadala, Naib Tehsildar, had already been relieved of his charge and new Naib Tehsildar had taken over the charge but due to negligence of his counsel, petitioner could not get the summons prepared and served upon the concerned official of the Revenue Department and therefore, he seeks only one opportunity for the said purpose. No doubt, the plaintiff-petitioner had been callous but at the same time, on account of negligence of the counsel, a party should not suffer. For causing delay, the other party can be compensated with heavy costs. In back-drop of these facts, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff is allowed one C.R. No. 4345 of 2011 -2- opportunity to examine the concerned official subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the other side. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 20, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE