IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5322 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 28.04.2008 M/s Kamlesh and Company ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Pravindra Singh, Advocate vs. M/s Mahesh Rice Mills Taraori ....Respondent(s) through Mr.P.C.Gupta, Advocate *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2007 whereby an application dated 10.2.2006 moved by the petitioner- defendant to permit it to examine eleven witnesses by sending a commission to Mumbai has been ordered to be dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction which is stated to have been amended and converted into a suit for recovery. The respondent-plaintiff led and closed its affirmative evidence on 7.9.2005. The petitioner-defendant, however, having failed to adduce any evidence, its evidence was closed vide Court order dated 10.2.2006. On that very day, the petitioner-defendant moved the present application for sending a Commission to Mumbai to examine eleven witnesses. That application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned C.R. No.5322 of 2007 -2- order. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It appears that the petitioner-defendant is adopting one or the other delaying tactics. The witnesses sought to be examined by it through a Commission could very well be summoned and/or application for appointment of a Commission, if at all there existed a valid ground, could be moved before the learned trial Court well in time. No such step having been taken, it is apparent that the present application was moved as a device to wriggle out of the consequences of the order dated 10.2.2006 whereby the petitioner's evidence was closed. In the normal circumstances and for the reasons aforestated, no interference in the impugned order would have been called for by this Court, however, in the interest of justice, it is directed that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-defendant to produce its entire evidence at its own responsibility and subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to the respondent-plaintiff. Disposed of. April 28, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE