CR No.6846/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6846/2010 Date of decision: 01.06.2011. Neeti Narang ....................Petitioner v. M/s New Haryana Finance Co. and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Parminder Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner/plaintiff claims to have invested a sum of Rs.1,44,235/- in the defendant no.1 firm i.e. M/s New Haryana Finance Company, Mandir Marg, Karnal. Defendant nos. 2 to 9 are partners in the said firm. It is claimed that since the aforesaid loan was neither returned nor interest paid on it, the petitioner/plaintiff was constrained to file a civil suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount on 31.3.2006. It is stated that during the proceedings most of the time was consumed in the pursuit of application under Order 38 Rule 5 for pre- attachment of the property of the defendants to secure the interests of the plaintiff thus resulting in wasting of the opportunities granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to conclude her evidence. It is conceded that after CR No.6846/2010 2 availing 10 opportunities, the learned trial court vide order dated 7.8.2010 closed the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner. Aggrieved against the order dated 7.8.2010 the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.5273/2010 which was allowed vide order dated 23.8.2010 and the petitioner/plaintiff was granted one effective opportunity to lead her entire evidence at her own risk and responsibility. It is stated that after the passing of the aforesaid order dated 23.8.2010 remaining two official witnesses i.e. one from the Income Tax Department and one from the Police Department were sought to be examined. Their diet money was deposited and summons served for appearance on 30.9.2010. The official witnesses instead of appearing for evidence, sent their individual requests for adjournment before the learned trial court resulting into passing of the now impugned order dated 30.9.2010, thereby closing further evidence. Learned counsel submits that this Court vide order dated 23.8.2010 had granted one effective opportunity and keeping in view the aforesaid facts it cannot be construed that one effective opportunity has been availed since no fault can be attributed to the conduct of the plaintiff/petitioner. He, thus, prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.9.2010 and to direct the learned trial court to adopt coercive methods to secure the presence of the official witnesses so as to meet the requirement of an effective opportunity. Despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of the CR No.6846/2010 3 respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves further opportunity to enforce the effective opportunity granted by this Court vide order dated 23.8.2010. It was incumbent upon the learned trial court to secure the presence of the official witnesses qua whom the diet money and expenses have been deposited by the plaintiff and summons served. The learned trial court has mis-interpreted the true import of the order dated 23.8.2010. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.2000/- to be deposited with the Distt.Legal Services Authority,Karnal, the impugned order dated 30.9.2010 is set aside and the petitioner is granted another effective opportunity to conclude the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses. The learned trial court, if need be, shall adopt coercive methods in terms of Order 16 Rule 12 CPC. 01.06.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge