C.R. 5126 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAN AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. 5126 of 2009 Date of decision 15.10.2009 Garg Rice Industries, Matlauda petitioner vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula and another Respondent Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdev Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.S.BEDI,J. Heard. A perusal of order dated 28.3.2009 in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC for restoration of the suit, indicates that the suit of the plaintiff- petitioner was dismissed in default by the trial court on 28.3.2008. On 20.2.2008 the plaintiff- petitioner had failed to produce the evidence despite last opportunity having been granted to him, resulting in closure of his evidence. The negligence and the casual approach of the plaintiff- petitioner is apparent from the record before this court. It is pertinent to observe here that while closing the evidence vide impugned order dated 20.2.2008, the trial court had adjourned the case for 3.3.2008 with an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the documentary evidence and for recording the statements of the Dws. Taking into consideration the totality of all the circumstances, it appears that an opportunity should have been given to the plaintiff to produce his witnesses also on 3.3.2008, the date for which he had been C.R. 5126 of 2009 2 given an opportunity to produce the documentary evidence. The plaintiff- petitioner is apparently adopting delaying tactics. However, he can be permitted to establish his case on merits subject to imposition of some penalty, sufficient enough to deter the petitioner from delaying the further proceedings. The revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 20.2.2008 is hereby set aside in the interest of justice and one opportunity is granted to him to produce his entire evidence. On the asking of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the plaintiff- petitioner wants to examine himself besides contractor Sher Singh. It is ordered that the plaintiff- petitioner will be entitled to examine himself and produce contractor Sher Singh at his own responsibility on one specific date, to be fixed by the trial court subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs. A sum of Rs.15,000/- lying deposited with the Registry will be sent by a cross cheque in favour of M.D. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Sector 2, Panchkula by registered post. Balance of Rs.5,000/- will be paid on the next date before the trial court. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 12.11.2009 or the date already fixed, which ever is earlier. The trial court, on appearance of both the parties on the above said date, will fix a date for examination of the plaintiff and contractor Sher Singh. It is made clear that in case balance of Rs.5000/- is not paid or the witnesses are not produced on the date given by the trial court, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. October 15 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE