C. R. No. 2932 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2932 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 21, 2009 Hardev Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Mahinder Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. M. S. Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff assailing order dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa thereby closing petitioner's evidence by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner- plaintiff was granted four effective opportunities including two last opportunities. In these circumstances, the trial court was left with no option, but to close the evidence of the petitioner by court order and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The contention of the petitioner that he had deposited process C. R. No. 2932 of 2009 2 fee and diet money of the witnesses is not sufficient to find any infirmity with the impugned order because according to paragraph 5 of the revision petition, diet money of the witnesses was deposited just a week before third opportunity for evidence of the petitioner and not for first opportunity for evidence of the petitioner. Consequently, it was the duty of the petitioner to present his witnesses in the Court at his own responsibility. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at his own responsibility on payment of cost. Although, as noticed herein above, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, yet I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead his remaining evidence at his own responsibility on payment of heavy cost. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for revision petition, if notice is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed of by directing that the petitioner shall be granted only one more opportunity by the trial court to lead his remaining evidence at his own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost precedent. May 21, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE