C. R. No. 1030 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1030 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 17, 2010 Kehar Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Vinod Kumar .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 26.11.2009, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, thereby closing evidence of the petitioner by court order. It has been observed in the impugned order that the plaintiff has availed of five consecutive opportunities for his evidence, but has failed to conclude the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility, on payment of cost. As noticed herein above, the petitioner was granted five opportunities to lead evidence, but the plaintiff failed to conclude the same. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the aforesaid prayer of counsel for the petitioner is allowed and one more opportunity is C. R. No. 1030 of 2010 2 granted to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility, on payment of heavy cost. It may be noticed that even the instant revision petition has been filed almost three months after the passing of the impugned order and for this undue delay also, the petitioner has to be subjected to heavy cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the respondent, so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and to save the respondent of the expenses, he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the instant revision petition, if the notice is issued to him. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 26.11.2009, passed by the trial court, is set aside and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but that shall be no ground for grant of any more opportunity even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness inspite of service or for any other reason whatsoever. February 17, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE