Civil Revision No.1222 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1222 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 22, 2011 Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi .....Petitioner v. Harvinder Singh Cheema and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Raqjbir Singh, 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 order dated 15.1.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malerkotla, vide which the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by 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 recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac only) has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondents-defendants on account of damages alongwith pendente lite and future interest. Suit was contested by respondent no.2-defendant no.2. Issues were framed on 11.10.2008. The case was fixed for evidence of plaintiff. First effective date fixed for evidence was 25.9.2009, when no PW was present and the case was adjourned to 3.2.2010. On 3.2.2010, due to fault of Ahlmad, summons could not be issued, though diet money was deposited by petitioner-plaintiff and hence, the case was adjourned to 15.5.2010. On 15.5.2010, four witnesses were examined and the case was adjourned to 16.9.2010 for remaining evidence. On 16.9.2010, no PW was present. Last opportunity was granted for 26.10.2010. On 26.10.2010 cross-examination Civil Revision No.1222 of 2011(O&M) -2- of one witness was completed, however, last opportunity was given for examination of concerned Clerk from the office of daily newspaper Jagbani and Patiala Bani for 8.12.2010. On 8.12.2010, PW S.K.Arya was present and however as he did not bring the summoned record, case was adjourned to 15.1.2011 and however, on that date when the witness did not come present despite the fact that he was bound down for 15.1.2011, learned trial Court passed the impugned order closing the evidence of petitioner- plaintiff, which reads as under:- “ Today was the last opportunity for the evidence of plaintiff and on last date of hearing PW- S.K.Arya was bound down for today and he was to produce certain material from his publication house. Case called several time but this witness has not appeared. Learned counsel for plaintiff has requested for date but perusal of file reveals that evidence of plaintiff was called vide order dated 11.10.2008 when the issues were framed and after that till date plaintiff has not been able to concluder her evidence, therefore, it stands closed by order. To come up on 23.2.2011 for defendant evidence. PF/DM and list of witnesses, if any, be filed within 7 days.” Hence, in view of these facts, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the witness had not come present despite the fact that he was summoned by the Court and was bound down for 15.1.2011, evidence of petitioner-plaintiff should not have been closed. In view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to give one more effective opportunity to the petitioner for examining the witness, namely, PW S.K.Arya. However, it is also requested that petitioner-plaintiff wants to tender in evidence some documents as well. Learned trial Court may allow the same as well subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 22.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.1222 of 2011(O&M) -3-