IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 683 of 2008. Date of Decision: 08th May, 2008. Ganga Ram Sharma ....Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Rana, Advocate Versus Keso Ram & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala whereby an application moved by the petitioner to grant him last opportunity to lead his evidence and to recall the order dated 6th August, 2007 whereby his evidence was closed, has been dismissed. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction. There appears to be a dispute regarding ownership and/or raising of construction over the land marked as ABCD in the site plan appended to the plaint. The petitioner did examine some witnesses and in order to examine Ram Sarup, an official from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, he deposited the requisite process fee and diet money. The witness, however, did not appear despite notice, therefore, on 5.2.2007, learned Civil Court passed the following order:- “The case is fixed for bringing of record by PW Ram Sarup from the office of DC Ambala but today despite service he did not appear. Let his presence be secured Civil Revision No.683 of 2008. ::-2-:: through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount for 6.8.2007. Plaintiff may bring his remaining evidence, if any, on the date fixed. Last opportunity remained intact”. It is not in dispute that the presence of Ram Sarup – the aforesaid witness was secured through bailable warrants on 6.8.2007. However, he could not be examined as he did not bring the summoned record. On that very date, the learned trial Court closed the petitioner's evidence by an order. The petitioner thereafter moved an application to recall the afore-stated order and to grant him last opportunity to examine the said witness and also for his own cross-examination. His application has, however, been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the impugned order has also been perused. It is apparent from the order dated 5.2.2007 passed by the learned trial Court and reproduced above that the petitioner did his best to secure the presence of Ram Sarup – witness and in fact it was through the lawful coercive methods only that his presence could be secured. If the witness came present without the summoned record, in my considered view, the petitioner need not to have been made to suffer on that count. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the impugned orders dated 6.8.2007 and 23.01.2008 are hereby set aside and the learned Civil Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner who will deposit the requisite process fee and diet money to summon the official concerned from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala. Learned trial Court, in turn may direct the said witness to come present along with the relevant records. On that very day, the petitioner may also appear to enable the respondents to cross-examine him. Learned trial Court, however, Civil Revision No.683 of 2008. ::-3-:: shall see that no inordinate delay in the disposal of the suit is caused. At this stage, learned counsel representing the contesting respondents has come up with a fair suggestion that in terms of some previous litigation inter-se parties statedly decided up to this Court, he is ready to make a statement that no construction over the portion which is allegedly part of the street shall be raised by him. According to him, the aforesaid statement completely redresses the grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff. If that be so, both the parties may appear and make a statement to this effect before the learned trial Court. Disposed of. May 08, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE