Civil Revision No.5058 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5058 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 23, 2011 Jagtar Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt.Raksha Devi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.20343-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5058 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.9.2009, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), SBS Nagar, vide which defence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by learned trial Court and order dated 4.8.2011, Annexure P4, vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for reviewing the said order was also dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders and the various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that present suit was filed by petitioner-plaintiff in the year 2004. After Civil Revision No.5058 of 2011(O&M) -2- filing written statement by respondent-defendant, issues were framed on 17.1.2005 and the case was adjourned for 23.5.2005 for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff. Petitioner-plaintiff was also directed to file list of witnesses, process fee and diet money etc. by learned trial Court. However, the said order was not complied with as no list of witnesses was filed. On 23.5.2005 no witness of petitioner-plaintiff was present. The case was adjourned for 7.11.2005, on which date as well no witness was present. However, on the request of petitioner-plaintiff third and last opportunity, as per law, was given by learned trial Court for 27.2.2006. On 27.2.2006 as well, the same story was repeated and, however, in the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to petitioner-plaintiff by learned trial Court and the case was adjourned for 4.5.2006, on which date as well no witness was present and another opportunity was granted and the case was adjourned for 1.8.2006. On 1.8.2006, affidavit of only one PW was tendered and for remaining evidence, the case was adjourned for 28.9.2006. On 28.9.2006 as well, no witness was present and another opportunity was granted and the case was adjourned for 7.11.2006, on which date only one witness was present, who had not come to the court with complete record and hence, the case was adjourned for 19.2.2007. On 19.2.2007, affidavits of three witnesses were tendered and the case was adjourned for 31.5.2007. However, in the meantime, file was sent to learned appellate Court and when the file was received in the trial Court, the case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff for 18.9.2008. On 18.9.2008 when no witness was present case was adjourned for 10.12.2008 and however, as the Court was busy in pre Lok Adalat on 10.12.2008, case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff for 21.4.2009. On 21.4.2009 also no Civil Revision No.5058 of 2011(O&M) -3- evidence was present and the case was adjourned for 20.7.2009. However, on 20.7.2009 also when no PW was present, the case was adjourned for 20.8.2009. However, on 20.8.2009 again when no witness was present the case was adjourned for 25.9.2009, on which date, the impugned order, Annexure P2 was passed closing evidence of petitioner-plaintiff. The said order was not challenged before this Court by petitioner-plaintiff. Rather a review application was filed by him. However, the same was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 4.8.2011. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that he does not want to examine any other witness and that only the witnesses including the petitioner himself, whose affidavits have already been tendered in evidence are to be cross-examined and that only one opportunity may be granted to him for the said purpose so that their statements be read in evidence. He has also placed reliance upon judgments rendered by this Court in Ishwar Singh v. Umraowati, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 582; Darshana Devi v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 805; Satpal Sharma Pujari v. Chand Parkash Maghan and others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 248, and a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 612. Hence, in view of these facts, when no other witness is to be examined by petitioner-plaintiff, one opportunity can be granted to him to produce his witnesses, whose affidavits have already been tendered in examination-in-chief for the purpose of cross-examination so that the same Civil Revision No.5058 of 2011(O&M) -4- be read in evidence and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to allow him to produce his witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for the other side so that their statements be read in evidence subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 23.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge