IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5266 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 14, 2009 Harish Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus Karambir .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Dr. Praveen Hans, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The plaintiffs have filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned trial Court on September 09, 2008 whereby their evidence was closed by Court order. Order dated July 25, 2009 passed by the learned trial Court, while dismissing their application for review of the aforementioned, order has also been challenged. While passing the order dated 9.9.2008, learned trial Court observed that two prosecution witnesses, who were present, had been examined and no other prosecution witness was present despite it being last opportunity granted to the plaintiffs. Though the request was made for an adjournment yet no justification could be found in the same as Civil Revision No. 5266 of 2009 - 2 - sufficient effective opportunities, including the last opportunity, had already been granted to them for the said purpose. Subsequent to the filing of an application by the plaintiffs for reviewing the aforementioned order, learned trial Court, in its order dated 25.7.2009, held that the order for closing of evidence could not be said to be the result of mistake or error and the same had been passed after due deliberations. Moreover, it is the discretion of the Court to grant adjournment to any party for examining its evidence. As the learned trial Court lacked jurisdiction to review its order, the application filed by the plaintiffs for the said purpose was, accordingly, dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the various orders passed by the learned trial Court. On 20.3.2008 (Annexure P.1), the learned trial Court settled the issues and the case was adjourned to 2.6.2008 for evidence of the plaintiffs. On 2.6.2008 (Annexure P.2), one prosecution witness, namely, Bishan Singh was present and he was examined. One Mahabir Singh, Reader to Naib Tehsildar, Bawani Khera had also come present and produced report of the Nishandehi. The original of the report was returned to him after keeping a certified copy of the same on the record. The case was then adjourned to 9.9.2008 for remaining evidence of the plaintiffs. On 9.9.2008 (Annexure P.3), two prosecution witnesses were present and they were examined. Although a request was made on behalf of the plaintiffs for an adjournment so as to complete the recording of their Civil Revision No. 5266 of 2009 - 3 - evidence, yet, the learned trial Court declined their request and closed the evidence by Court order. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear from the orders dated March 20, 2008 and June 02, 2008 that only one opportunity had been availed of by the plaintiffs before the passing of the impugned order dated September 09, 2008 by the learned trial Court whereby the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by Court order. In fact, no last opportunity had been granted to the plaintiffs. It is clear from the reading of order dated March 20, 2008 that after the framing of the issues, case was adjourned to 2.6.2008 for evidence of the plaintiffs. For the first time, the plaintiffs produced some of their witnesses on 2.6.2008 and then the case was adjourned to 9.9.2008. The opportunity, which had been given to the plaintiffs to examine their remaining evidence on 9.9.2008, was only the second one and not the third, as under the amended Code of Civil Procedure, three opportunities are required to be given to the parties to the suit for getting their respective evidence examined/recorded. Moreover, no last opportunity had been granted to the plaintiffs, especially on 2.6.2008 when the case was adjourned for 9.9.2008 for remaining evidence of the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, learned trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiffs by Court order on 9.9.2008. Instead, it ought to have adjourned the matter by granting one Civil Revision No. 5266 of 2009 - 4 - more opportunity to the plaintiffs for recording their remaining evidence. In view of the fact that it stands established from the orders dated 2.6.2008 and 9.9.209 that only two opportunities had been granted to the plaintiffs for getting their evidence recorded, no useful purpose would be served by hearing the defendant-respondent before granting relief to the plaintiffs-petitioners in their present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, if such an exercise is undertaken, that would result in delaying the proceedings, besides causing unnecessary financial hardship to the defendant-respondent. Resultantly, the present revision is allowed, impugned order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the learned trial Court while closing the evidence of the plaintiffs by Court order and the order dated 25.7.2009 while declining to review the aforementioned order, are set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiffs to examine their remaining evidence. However, the defendant-respondent will be at liberty to move an application before this Court in case he is aggrieved against the order whereby the revision filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners is allowed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) September 14, 2009 JUDGE satish