IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.746 of 2008 Date of decision: February 6, 2008. Kuldip Chand Bhargav ...Petitioner(s) v. State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby the petitioner – plaintiff's evidence has been closed, after observing that no witness was produced, rather an application for adjournment of the case was moved on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to appear due to the unfortunate demise of his close relation. It is contended by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even though three or more opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence, however, as the talks for a compromise between the parties were going on, the same was not produced. He further contends that after closing the petitioner's evidence, the case was adjourned to 3.12.2007 for the defendant's evidence but the defendant-Bank also produced no evidence on that date, rather sought adjournment on the plea of a possible compromise. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 25.1.2008 when both the parties again sought adjournment to explore the possibility of a compromise. For the said purpose, it is stated that the case would now be listed on 17.3.2008 before the Lok Adalat. It is, thus, contended that in the interest of justice, at least one more opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence, if no compromise is effected between the parties. In view of the nature of relief sought in this Petition, I am not inclined to issue notice of motion as no immeasurable prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent – defendant, more so when suitable costs can be awarded to compensate the defendant. In the light of the above stand taken before this Court and the subsequent developments noticed above, I am of the considered view that in case no compromise takes place between the parties, then the petitioner deserves to be granted reasonable opportunity to lead his evidence. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed that in the event the parties do not reach any compromise, the petitioner may be granted two opportunities to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility and further subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- by him to the defendant. With these observations, disposed of. February 6, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge