Civil Revision No. 870 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 870 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.2.2009 Nirmal Singh ..... Petitioner vs Malkiat Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal,Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P- 1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, whereby evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for declaration filed by the petitioner against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after framing the issues, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 23.4.2007. As no witness was present on that date, the case was adjourned to 20.8.2007. On the said date also, no witness was present and the case was adjourned to 20.12.2007. On 20.12.2007, affidavit of Jagtar Singh PW1 was filed and his cross-examination was conducted on 13.3.2008 and the case was adjourned to 7.4.2008. On 7.4.2008, no witness was examined as both the parties were trying to settle the matter by way of compromise with the intervention of Amrik Singh and Jagdev Singh who were present on that day to be examined as PWs. He submitted that as the parties were trying to settle the matter by way of compromise, the petitioner could not conclude his evidence. It was on 7.1.2009, the court, closed the evidence of the petitioner by order. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date fixed. Civil Revision No. 870 of 2009 (2) The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. The case is fixed for hearing before the court below on 20.2.2009. From the facts stated above, I find the cause shown by the petitioner for permitting him one more opportunity and lead evidence is sufficient. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff for completing his evidence on the date already fixed before the court i.e. 20.2.2009. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the respondents and also the earlier costs, if not paid. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get summons issued for any witness. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete his entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of ususal charges. 17.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge