Civil Revision No.5210 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5210 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.8.2011 Karan Singh and Others ... Petitioners Versus Smt. Birwati and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the orders dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P3) and dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure P4), respectively, whereby the defendants’ evidence was closed by order. A perusal of the order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P3) reveals that on that day six witnesses of the defendants were examined and one DW namely Gian Chand was partly examined. The cross-examination of five witnesses was concluded and further examination of DW Gian Chand was deferred. On that day, the trial Court ordered that one Junior Engineer from the Office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Faridabad, would be examined on the next day as notice issued to him has been received unserved. Except examination of these two witnesses, defendants' evidence was closed by order. On Civil Revision No.5210 of 2011 2 4.8.2011, the trial Court concluded cross-examination of Gian Chand and also noticed the fact that notice issued to Junior Engineer has been received back as unserved. Fully knowing that the notice could not be served upon Junior Engineer, who is an official witness, the trial Court closed the defendants' evidence by order. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate, appearing for the defendants/petitioners has rightly urged that there was no fault on the part of the defendants for non appearance of the Junior Engineer. It is submitted before me that the evidence of Junior Engineer from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Faridabad, is very necessary and material as the defendants intended to examine him along with the record pertaining to latrine constructed in village Bhatola in the month of December 1995 and record pertaining to first assessment baring No. 14784 for, the project i.e. date of measurement dated 23.12.1995 containing record of 66 latrines constructed on the premises of petitioners/defendants. He has further submitted that on 25.8.2011, the case was adjourned to 1.9.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P3) and dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure P4), respectively, whereby the defendants’ evidence was closed by order and an opportunity was not afforded to them to examine Junior Engineer from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Faridabad, cannot sustain and the same are liable to be set aside. The trial Court is directed to ensure the presence of Junior Engineer from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Faridabad, in accordance with the Civil Revision No.5210 of 2011 3 provisions of law. Needless to say, if necessary, the trial Court can take coercive measures also. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. The trial Court is directed to afford an effective opportunity to the petitioners/defendants to examine the Junior Engineer from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Faridabad, in view of the observations made above. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 29, 2011 “DK”