Civil Revision No. 7558 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7558 of 2011 Date of decision. 07.12.2011 Kewal Raj .... Petitioner Versus Subhash Chander and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Kewal Raj, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2011(Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by court order. Kewal Raj, petitioner had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of a residential house situated in village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil and District Pathankot, properly detailed in head note of the plaint. He had also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property and alienating or creating charge over the same in any form. In Civil Revision No. 7558 of 2011 --2-- the said suit, the plaintiff was to lead his evidence on 14.11.2011. As no evidence was brought by the plaintiff despite the fact that it was last opportunity for his evidence and as he had already availed several opportunities, no ground was found for accepting the request for one more adjournment and, therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the court. I have heard Mr. R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the other evidence had already been led by the plaintiff and it was the plaintiff alone, who was left to be examined in this case. According to him, on 05.02.2011 statement of one witness was recorded and on that day, the defendants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and the suit remained pending thereafter for filing reply as well as for consideration of the application. According to him, on 13.10.2011 when the case was fixed for consideration of the application, the defendants made a statement that they did not press the application. Consequently, the application was disposed of and the case was adjourned to 14.11.2011 for evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. It is claimed that the petitioner remained under bonafide belief that the case was fixed for consideration on application and he could not appear before learned trial court on 14.11.2011. Civil Revision No. 7558 of 2011 --3-- Keeping in view the circumstances highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is possible that the plaintiff-petitioner may have remained under the wrong impression that the case was still fixed for consideration of the application. So benefit of such a doubt should have been given to him. Learned trial court was though right in observing that last opportunity had already been granted and the evidence was not forthcoming yet in the interest of justice, one more opportunity could very well be granted subject to payment of costs. In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to one opportunity for his own statement. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to the plaintiff for his own statement in support of his case. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 07.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh