Civil Revision No. 2242 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2242 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.4.2009 Ajay Kumar ..... Petitioner vs Firm Sant Ram Chiman Lal ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi and Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, Advocates, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 3.1.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent on 8.6.2004. The issues were framed on 27.10.2006. The evidence of the plaintiff was started on 15.1.2007 and closed on 9.6.2008. Thereafter the case was posted for petitioner's evidence on 7.8.2008. He submitted that on 5.12.2008, the petitioner tendered his affidavit but his cross-examination was not done as the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff was not feeling well. On the date when the cross- examination of the petitioner was fixed, he missed the date which resulted in passing of impugned order. Thereafter he has filed application for recalling the order dated 3.1.2009 which also met with the same result. Learned counsel further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date already fixed by the learned court below. Civil Revision No. 2242 of 2009 (2) The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was merely seeking adjournments and not leading evidence rather it is due to some mistake he could not appear in the court for his cross-examination only on one date. In view of the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 3.1.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner and also the subsequent order dated 1.4.2009, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date already fixed by it. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the respondent. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete his entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 24.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge