Civil Revision No.1292 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1292 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 24, 2011 Ram Sakhi Bharti .....Petitioner v. Panna Lal Sharma .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5244-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just objections. Civil Revision No.1292 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 2.2.2011, Annexure P1, vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from alienating the property in dispute, in any manner, on the basis of agreement to sell allegedly executed in his favour by petitioner-defendant, which was lateron amended for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Many opportunities were also availed by petitioner-defendant. Part evidence of defendant was also recorded and however, his remaining Civil Revision No.1292 of 2011(O&M) -2- evidence has been closed vide impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent has taken about three years in concluding his evidence and that the case was fixed for evidence of defendant for the first time on 30.8.2010 and the impugned order closing his evidence was passed on 2.2.2011. I have perused all the zimni orders passed by learned trial Court. Sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner-defendant. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that he wants to examine petitioner and his son only and no other evidence is to be adduced. Hence, in view of the fact that sufficient time was also taken by respondent-plaintiff to conclude his evidence, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-defendant and another party can be compensated by way of cost. As a sequel to my above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside to the extent of closing the evidence of petitioner-defendant. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-defendant to examine himself and his son as a witness subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 24.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge