Civil Revision No. 941 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 941 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.2.2009 Avtar Singh ..... Petitioner vs Fauja Singh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. L. S. Sidhu, 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 orders dated 28.8.2008 and 12.2.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner 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 respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the claim petition as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for recovery filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the respondent on 17.8.2005. On 4.6.2008, the petitioner/defendant submitted his affidavit which was the first opportunity for his evidence. On that day, due to absence of opposite counsel his cross-examination was not conducted and the case was adjourned to 9.6.2008. On the said date of hearing also one DW was examined-in-chief but his cross-examination was deferred again on the request of opposite counsel and he was bound down for 8.8.2008 for his cross-examination. On 8.8.2008 one DW was present but due to no objection statement given by the counsel for the petitioner, case was adjourned to 28.8.2008. On 28.8.2008, one DW was examined but as the petitioner was not well, he could not come to the court and his evidence was closed by order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application for review of order dated 28.8.2008 but the same was also dismissed vide order Civil Revision No. 941 of 2009 (2) dated 12.2.2009. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date fixed. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was merely seeking adjournments and not leading evidence rather after his evidence started on 4.6.2008, evidence was led on practically each date of hearing. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 28.8.2008, closing the evidence of the petitioner and also the subsequent order dated 12.2.2009, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date to be fixed by the court. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the respondent. 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. 20.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge