Civil Revision No.2428 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2428 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 8, 2011 Ami Lal .....Petitioner v. Bal Mukand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.1.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rewari, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale was filed by petitioner-plaintiff against respondent-defendant. The suit was contested by respondent-defendant. Issues were framed. Case was fixed for evidence of plaintiff for 1.12.2009, then for 25.3.2010, thereafter for 9.6.2010, then 11.10.2010 and lastly for 27.1.2011, when the impugned order was passed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that only plaintiff remains to be examined and his other evidence has already been concluded. It is further contended that though petitioner-plaintiff was present and, however, he could not be examined on that date due to negligence of his counsel. Hence, he requests one date for examination of petitioner-plaintiff. Civil Revision No.2428 of 2011(O&M) -2- Learned trial Court already granted sufficient opportunities to petitioner-plaintiff to produce his evidence. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. However, in view of the facts that only petitioner-plaintiff remains to be examined, one opportunity can be granted to him to examine himself at his own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to examine himself as a witness subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 8.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge