Civil Revision No.4764 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4764 of 2011 Date of Decision: 22.2.2012 Onkar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Madan Gopal and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. L.N. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) Plaintiff Onkar Singh has filed the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 23.7.2011 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pathankot thereby closing evidence of plaintiff-petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case carefully. Prior to 23.7.2011, the case was fixed for 28.4.2011. On that date, counsel for the plaintiff made statement that he be granted one opportunity to produce evidence failing which his evidence be deemed to be closed by court order. Accordingly the case was adjourned to 23.7.2011 and on that day, counsel for the plaintiff sought another adjournment but the same was declined and evidence of plaintiff-petitioner was closed by Court order. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact counsel for the plaintiff in the trial Court, had noted the date of hearing as 23.8.2011 instead of 23.7.2011 and therefore, another adjournment was sought by the counsel in the trial Court on 23.7.2011. Even in diary of the said counsel, the case was fixed for 23.8.2011. These facts are also mentioned in the Civil Revision No.4764 of 2011 -2- impugned order of the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, trial court should have accepted the request of counsel for the plaintiff for grant of another adjournment because he had noted the wrong date of hearing. Consequently, impugned order of the trial Court thereby closing evidence of plaintiff by Court order is perverse & illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error because trial Court refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to grant adjournment to the plaintiff for his evidence. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by trial court is set aside. Trial Court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioner for adducing remaining evidence at his own responsibility. (L.N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 22.2.2012 Meenu