Civil Revision No.5739 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5739 of 2011 Date of Decision : 20th September, 2011 Surjit Kaur and another .... Petitioners Versus Swaran Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 18.05.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, thereby closing evidence of the defendants by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that only 9 effective opportunities and not 15 opportunities as mentioned in the impugned order, were granted to the defendants for their evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the defendants for their remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. Perusal of zimini orders of the trial Court as reproduced in the revision petition reveals that defendants have been granted 9 effective Civil Revision No.5739 of 2011 -2- opportunities for their evidence. Thus sufficient number of opportunities was granted to the defendants for their evidence, but nevertheless I am of the opinion ends of justice would be met if only one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners for their evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. Petitioners have to be subjected to very heavy cost because they have already availed of large number of opportunities and also because the instant revision petition has been filed four months after the passing of the impugned order for which there is no explanation. It may be mentioned that the suit is for joint possession of the land depicting that defendants are in possession of the suit and therefore, they are intentionally delaying the disposal of the suit. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents/plaintiffs so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the plaintiffs of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the revision petition is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial Court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the defendants for their remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as cost precedent. Not more than one effective opportunity shall be granted to the defendants for their remaining evidence under any circumstances. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 20th September, 2011 'raj'