CIVIL REVISION NO.8220 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.8220 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 17, 2010 Laxmi Chand .... Petitioner Versus Sumer Chand and another .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1-Laxmi Chand has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India to challenge orders dated 15.10.2010 and 16.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, thereby closing evidence of defendant No.1 who is also legal representative of defendant No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Order dated 15.10.2010 of the trial court reveals that on that date, four witnesses of defendant No.1-petitioner were present and examined but the 5th witness namely Satender Malik, who was also present, could not be examined as court time was over. He was bound down to come on 16.10.2010 in the court but he did not turn up. Defendant No.1 had also summoned a Clerk from the office of CIVIL REVISION NO.8220 OF 2010 -2- Sub-Registrar, Meham but he also did not turn up on 15.10.2010. DW Clerk of DDA office was not properly served. It may be added that the case is now said to be fixed for evidence of defendant No.3. Keeping in view all these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at his own responsibility, subject to payment of costs. It may be added that even the instant revision petition has been filed after delay of two months. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondent No.1-plaintiff so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save respondent No.1-plaintiff of the expenses he may have to incur to engage counsel for the revision petition if notice of the revision petition is issued to him. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of Rs.2500/- as costs precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court to summon the witnesses. But not more than one opportunity shall be granted to him even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness in spite of service or on any other ground whatsoever. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE December 17, 2010 'raj'