IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1980 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 25.03.2010 Romesh Kumar Sethi .. Petitioner Versus Anil Kumar Sethi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Minderjeet Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order closing the evidence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that even though it cannot be denied that numerous opportunities were granted to the petitioner, yet in view of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice, if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner. In my opinion, the facts of the present case is not the case where the request of learned counsel can be held to be ingenuine. Consequently, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in this regard. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. March 25, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE