Civil Revision No.8033 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.8033 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 23, 2011 Krishan Lal and others ….Petitioners Versus Smt. Vandana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurgaon, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.21,21,500/- in the year 2008. The case was fixed for plaintiff evidence on 28.05.2010. On 28.05.2010, but plaintiff could not be examined and case was adjourned to 21.01.2011 and again on 21.01.2011 plaintiff could not be examined and he has been given last opportunity to produce his evidence on 22.07.2011. The trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner vide order dated - 1- Civil Revision No.8033 of 2011 22.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that he had already availed three opportunities. Thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who vide order dated 07.11.2011 dismissed the appeal on the ground being not maintainable as the impugned order does not fall either under Section 104 and Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After going through the file, it transpires that the petitioner- plaintiff has not been delaying the proceedings of the trial Court by seeking undue adjournments, thus the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. Petitioner-plaintiff is granted two opportunities to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/-. If the respondents have any objection to this order, they are at liberty to approach this Court. 23.12.2011 (RITU BAHRI) vcgarg JUDGE - 2- Civil Revision No.8033 of 2011 to file the written statement. Challenge is to the order dated 5.9.2011 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. In the present case, the suit was instituted on 23.5.2010 and issues were framed on 16.11.2010. On 28.4.2011 statements of plaintiff and four witnesses namely, Rajbala, Hari Chand, Ishwar and Krishan were recorded. PW1 Rajbala was cross-examined on 9.6.2011. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Precise grievance of the petitioner is that one of C.R. No. 7454 of 2011 [ 2 ] the witnesses Ishwar, after cross-examined, died on 9.11.2011. The other two witnesses Hari Chand, brother of Ishwar, and Krishan son of Ishwar, could not be crossexamined. In the interest of justice, the order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P-11) is set aside. One opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to cross-examine Hari Chand and Krishan subject to payment of `2,000/- as costs. Civil Revision is allowed. Challenge is to the order dated 13.06.2011 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff-Sunita has been closed on the ground that there was no compromise effected between the parties. Perusal of order dated 13.06.2011, reveals that the Court had granted last opportunity to effect the compromise and one PW was examined on 13.06.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute is regarding the common passage falling between the land of the plaintiff and the respondent. He further contends that plaintiff/petitioner wants to examine herself as a sole witness. The case is pending adjudication since 2007, in the interest of justice one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to examine herself as witness. Civil Revision No. 7467 of 2011 -2- In view of the above, the order dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-4) is set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to examine herself, subject to payment of `2,000/- as costs. Civil Revision is allowed No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order, as concededly these issues have come up after the filing of divorce petition in May 2009. While allowing the proposed amendment the present petitioner-wife will be at liberty to lead her evidence in defence. Civil Revision is dismissed. - 3- Civil Revision No.8033 of 2011 Civil Revision is allowed. Order dated 29.11.2011 is set aside and a direction is given to the trial court to give an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to enable him to conclude his evidence subject to payment of `5,000/- as costs. Summons for two official witnesses be also issued. On 8.1.2012, no further opportunity is required to be given for leading evidence. If plaintiff-respondent has any objection to this order, he is at liberty to approach this Court. 6.12.2011 ( ( 23.12.2011 (RITU BAHRI) vcgarg JUDGE - 4-