CR No.171 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.171 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.5.2010 Surinder Kumar Sachhar ..Petitioner. Vs. Sushma Sachhar ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gauravjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of CR Nos.171 of 2010 titled as Surinder Kumar Sachhar Vs. Sushma Sachhar and 172 of 2010 titled as Surinder Kumar Sachhar Vs. Sohan Lal Sachhar as both the revisions have arisen out of an order passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Jalandhar dated 15.12.2008 whereby evidence of the petitioner has been ordered to be closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 15.12.2008, the petitioner's witnesses could not be examined because the petitioner was summoned by Lok Adalat in this case. He has referred to summons/notice issued by the Lok Adalat, which is attached as Annexure P-2 and reads as under : CR No.171 of 2010 -2- “SMT.SUSHMA SACHAR VERSUS M/S AMIT GARMENTS Notice to defendants: 1. M/s Amit Garments, Attari Bazaar, Jalandhar through Prop/Partner Surinder Kumar Sachhar 2. Surinder Kumar Sachhar Prop/Partner M/s Amit Garments, Attari Bazaar, Jalandhar 2nd address: Surinder Kumar Sachhar son of Roshan Lal Sachhar Partner/Prop. M/s Amit Garments, EB 142A, Qilla Mohalla, Jalandhar Whereas in the above noted case you are hereby directed to appear in this Court on 15.12.2008 at 10 a.m. for appearance. Sd/-Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar” It is also submitted that next date before the Court below is 17.5.2010 on which date, he would examine all his witnesses. He further submits that if one opportunity is granted on payment of costs, he would examine all his witnesses on that day. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has been granted many opportunities by the Court below and it is a suit for recovery which is being delayed on his part deliberately, therefore, this revision petition deserves dismissal and in case the Court takes another view, the revision petition may be allowed with heavy costs. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is no doubt that the petitioner had obtained two dates for the purpose of examination of witnesses but on the fateful day i.e. CR No.171 of 2010 -3- 15.12.2008 the file was put up before Lok Adalat and he was directed to be present before the Lok Adalat at 10 a.m., therefore, on the said date the witnesses could not be examined but later on when the file was put up before the Court on the same very day, the impugned order was passed. Before Lok Adalat, the respondent herein did not come as a result of which the compromise could not be effected and the file was again put up before the Court on the same day where the petitioner could not lead his evidence. The reason assigned by the petitioner is satisfactory however, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner had already availed two opportunities but did not lead his evidence, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 5.5.2010 Judge Meenu