C.R.No.4034 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.4034 of 2010 Date of decision: 9.9.2010 Chhatar Singh ...Petitioner vs Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: Mr. Parmod Parmar,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.C.Marwaha, Advocate, for respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 17.5.2010 whereby petitioner has not been granted opportunity to lead his evidence in terms of the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by this Court in C.R.No.3113 of 2010. Vide order dated 1.4.2010, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide C.R.No.3113 of 2010. The aforesaid Civil Revision was disposed of by this Court which reads as under:- “ In view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead his documentary evidence i.e. certified copies of jamabandies subject to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs.3000/-. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the petitioner and the payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for allowing him to avail the opportunity as granted by this Court. Let the petitioner appear on the date fixed and on that C.R.No.4034 of 2010 2 date, he shall tender the costs as assessed. Thereafter, he shall be allowed to lead his documentary evidence as aforesaid before the defendants start their evidence. No further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner.” It is the further case of the petitioner that the aforesaid case was pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Loharu, on 17.5.2010. On that date, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and tendered the costs, and also made an application stating that the date be fixed to allow him to avail the opportunity, as granted by this Court in terms of the order dated 12.5.2010 passed in C.R.No.3113 of 2010. It may also be noticed that in the aforesaid application the petitioner had asked only for ten days time by stating that the brief was with the counsel at Chandigarh. However, the trial Court vide the impugned order rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court. Notice of motion was issued and comments of the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Loharu, were asked for, the same have been received and shall be dealt with separately. As per the trial Court, the petitioner was to lead his evidence on 17.5.2010 and he was not to be given any further opportunity. The aforesaid interpretation of the order dated 12.5.2010 is not sustainable, as vide order dated 12.5.2010, as reproduced above, while setting setting aside the order dated 01.04.2010 it was made clear that the petitioner is to be granted one more opportunity to lead his evidence. It was further made clear that the petitioner shall appear on the date fixed i.e.17.5.2010 and on that date he shall tender the costs and thereafter he shall be allowed to lead his C.R.No.4034 of 2010 3 evidence, as aforesaid, i.e. by granting one more opportunity. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute that the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity in terms of the order dated 12.5.2010. Thus, the impugned order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead his documentary evidence as per the order dated 12.5.2010. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed and thereafter the trial Court shall fix a date granting an opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence in terms of the order dated 12.5.2010. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed. With these observations the impugned order dated 17.5.2010 is set aside and this revision petition stands disposed of ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge September 9, 2010 rk