Civil Revision No. 6190 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6190 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 5th, 2011 Raj Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Raghbir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The present revision petition has been brought by Raj Kumar, one of the defendants, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of the court. In the suit brought by Raghbir Singh, plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the residential property shown by letters ABCD in the site plan and for other relief, the impugned order has been made on 25.11.2010. It is mentioned by learned Civil Revision No. 6190 of 2011 2 .. trial court in the impugned order that 5 witnesses of the defendants were present and their examination in chief had been recorded. The cross examination of those witnesses had been deferred on the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff. No other witness of the defendant was present despite the fact that it was last opportunity for the same. Adjournment was requested for further evidence and finding no good ground for the same, the evidence of the defendants was closed by order of the court. I have heard Shri R.S.Mamli, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The aforesaid order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that five witnesses had been produced by the defendants for their evidence on that day and for some reason, learned trial court was not in a position to record cross examination of those witnesses. Had the defendants produced some more witnesses, the same position would have been there with regard to the recording of statements of those witnesses. The case was being adjourned for evidence of the defendants itself because cross- examination of five witness of defendants was also a part of the evidence of the defendants. In these circumstances, when the case was being adjourned for the evidence of the defendants, there was no reason to preclude the defendants from bringing some more witnesses on that date. Hence, the impugned order does not stand the scrutiny of Civil Revision No. 6190 of 2011 3 .. this court. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order, closing the evidence of the defendants, is set aside with the direction to learned trial court to give one more opportunity to the defendants to produce their evidence at their responsibility. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 5th, 2011 som