IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6728 2009 Date of Decision : November 18, 2009 Sudarshan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Narbada Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Order passed by the learned trial Court on 7.11.2009, while closing the evidence of the defendant-petitioner by order of the Court, has been challenged in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 12.9.2009 whereby request made on his behalf for allowing his expert to take photographs from the summoned record was declined. While passing the order regarding closure of the evidence, learned trial Court observed that no DW was present despite it being the last opportunity. The defendant had already availed of many effective opportunities, including last opportunity and, therefore, no ground was Civil Revision No. 6728 2009 -2- made out to adjourn the case further for his evidence. While declining the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for allowing his expert to take photographs from the summoned record, learned trial Court observed that the record, though made available to the Court, was required to be produced in several cases. Moreover, the record not only contained the record of the defendant but also of a number of persons. At the same time, the defendant-petitioner was given liberty to get the photograph of the signatures on the power of attorney from the office of the Sub Registrar as per law. Learned counsel contends that though the petitioner has moved an application before the Sub Registrar for taking the photograph of the signatures on the power of attorney yet the said application has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner for necessary permission. The same is still pending whereas the evidence of the petitioner has been closed. It is also submitted that one Ajay Kumar Gupta, who was duly summoned as a witness by the defendant/petitioner was present before the learned trial Court on 12.9.2009. He was partly examined and thereafter bound down for 1.10.2009. However, on 1.10.2009, he did not put in appearance and, therefore, summoned through bailable warrants for 20.10.2009. On the adjourned date, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents was not present and on a request made on his behalf, the case was adjourned for 7.11.2009. On 7.11.2009, evidence of the defendant-petitioner was closed despite the fact that DW Ajay Civil Revision No. 6728 2009 -3- Kumar Gupta stood summoned through bailable warrants but was not present and no orders were passed to secure his presence, who is an officer of Municipal Committee, Rurki. As the defendant-petitioner has already moved an application before the Sub Registrar for allowing his expert to take photograph of the signatures on the power of attorney, he cannot be now heard saying that the learned trial Court went wrong in not placing the summoned record on the file or allowing his expert to take photograph from the summoned record in the Court itself. Therefore, order dated 12.9.2009 passed by the learned trial Court does not call for any interference. As regards the order passed by the learned trial Court closing the evidence of the defendant-petitioner, this Court feels that without giving a finding on the merits of the stand taken by the defendant-petitioner but keeping in view the interest of justice, one more opportunity is required to be granted to him to examine his remaining evidence consisting of aforementioned DW Ajay Kumar Gupta and the expert, who is likely to give a report after taking photograph of the signatures on the power of attorney. Resultantly, directions are issued to the learned trial Court to grant one more effective opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to examine his remaining evidence, i.e. DW Ajay Kumar Gupta and the Handwriting Expert, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. Civil Revision No. 6728 2009 -4- As the defendant-petitioner has already moved an application before Sub Registrar, Rohtak for allowing his expert to take photograph of the signature on the power of attorney and the said application has not been decided so far and necessary permission is awaited from the Deputy Commissioner, directions are hereby issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and Sub Registrar, Rohtak to decide the said application within two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition is disposed of, accordingly. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 18, 2009 JUDGE satish