Civil Revision No.2672 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2672 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:26.04.2010 JCT Limited .... petitioner Versus M/S Lomac Automations & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.N.K.Nagar,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): By way of this revision petition, the plaintiff has challenged the order dated 08.12.2009(Annexure P-2), whereby after concluding the cross-examination of PW1 in terms of the order dated 24.08.2009 passed in Civil Revision No.3894 to 3896 of 2009 the case was adjourned for further evidence of the defendant-respondents. It has been averred in this petition that vide aforesaid order, the evidence of the petitioner has been closed without giving any reasons and since the petitioner in order to prove his case intended to examine one more witness, he should have been given an opportunity to lead its evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the averments made in this petition. Civil Revision No.2672 of 2010 2 The order dated 12.12.2008 reads as follows: “PW1 Sh.Rajnish Datt, DGM, Marketing VPO Chohal, Distt.Hoshiarpur on SA. Recalled for further cross-examination. XXXXXXX(NIL) opportunity given RO&AC CJJD/12.12.08 Sd/- Statement of Sh.N.K.Nagar, counsel for the plaintiff. I close the evidence of the plaintiff in affirmative. RO&AC CJJD/12.12.08 Sd/- Pr: Cl.for the plaintiff. PWs present but could not be examined as counsel for defendant was not present. Counsel of plaintiff has closed plaintiff evidence by separate statement. Now to come up on 3.2.2009 for Dws. CJJD/12.12.08” The defendant-respondent filed an application for review of the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2008 vide which PWs could not be cross- examined by the counsel for the respondent. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2009. Defendant filed Civil Revision No.3894 to 3896 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure P-1). The cross-examination of PW1 by the defendant was completed vide order dated 08.12.2009(Annexure P-2) in terms of aforesaid order passed in Civil Revision No.3894 to 3896 of 2009. Admittedly, the evidence of the petitioner-company was closed by its counsel on 12.12.2008 in the affirmative. The aforesaid order has never been challenged by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid order, it cannot be said that the order dated 08.12.2009 is erroneous or illegal or that evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed. In fact, evidence of the petitioner in the affirmative was closed on 12.12.2008 by its counsel by Civil Revision No.2672 of 2010 3 making a statement. In fact, under the garb of the impugned order, petitioner wants to reopen his case for leading evidence which cannot be permitted. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.04.2010 neenu