IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7119 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 29, 2010 Rakesh. …Petitioner Versus Om Pal and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, by which plaintiff’s evidence was directed to be closed and plaintiff was not permitted to summon the Kanungo to bring the excerpt of the revenue record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that two PWs were produced before the Court below, however, cross- C.R. No.7119 of 2010 examination was deferred on the request of the learned counsel for the defendants. He further states that learned Trial Court has adjourned the case for the cross-examination of two PWs, however, rest of the evidence of the plaintiff was illegally closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that plaintiff-petitioner shall file certified copies of the revenue record before the learned Trial Court after obtaining leave of the Court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the opinion of this Court, present petition can be disposed of at the admission stage without any notice to the respondents. This Court is of the further opinion that issuing notice to the respondents shall cause unnecessary delay in the trial of the suit, hence, this Court proposes to decide this petition without notice to the respondents. Keeping in mind, the golden rule that none of the party should be given walk over and lis between the parties, as far as possible, should be decided at its own merit after granting sufficient opportunities to both the parties to place on record entire evidence and material, I direct that on the date fixed cross-examination of two PWs shall be held and plaintiff shall be entitled to produce other witnesses also and plaintiff shall also be at liberty to move an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record certified copies of the revenue record. However, it is clarified if such an 2 C.R. No.7119 of 2010 application is moved under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same shall be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law. It is also clarified if on the date fixed examination of witnesses produced by the plaintiff is not complete, for any reason, the Trial Court shall be at liberty either to hold day-to-day trial or to fix any future date, which is convenient to the Trial Court. Petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondents on or before the next date fixed. Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. October 29, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3