Civil Revision No. 1525 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1525 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.7.2011 *** Ikram .. Petitioners Vs. Avtar Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance filed by him against the respondents. On 6.8.2009 evidence of defendants was closed by the Court order since they failed the same to conclude it in time. However, during the course when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, defendant No.3 Smt. Gayatri Devi filed an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Though the application was resisted by the plaintiff-petitioner, but the learned trial Court by dint of order dated 4.2.2011 allowed the application and granted her one opportunity to lead additional evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Dis-satisfied with the same, the instant civil revision has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. Heard. It is evident from records that in the suit it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that he purchased agricultural land belonging to respondent No.2 Rajiv Kalra through respondent No.1 Avtar Singh Kukreja as his attorney. But instead of performing their part of contract, the suit land was sold to respondent No.3 Smt. Gayatri Devi. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court below observed that the evidence on behalf of Civil Revision No. 1525 of 2011 2 this defendant is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Even otherwise, in the considered opinion of the Court no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner, who obviously has a right to rebut the evidence led by defendant No.3. In this backdrop of facts, for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the application of respondent No.3 has rightly been allowed by the Court below. However, the cost imposed by the Court below is not in consonance with the negligence of respondent No.3 and must be on higher side. Therefore, the instant revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified and the amount of cost is increased to Rs.5000/-, which respondent No.3 shall pay on the next date before the Court below. Disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 14, 2011 Jiten