IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. NO.1052 OF 2009 DATE OF ORDER: 4.3.2009 Rajbir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) Versus Rajinder Singh and another ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioners-defendants, by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged order dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure P.1) passed by the learned trial Court whereby their evidence has been closed by order in default. It is stated that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction on 31.5.1999. Issues were framed in February 2001 and the respondents-plaintiffs were directed to lead their evidence w.e.f 24.7.2002. After availing eleven opportunities within a period of six years, their evidence was closed on 11.10.2008. Thereafter from 15.11.2008 till the passing of the impugned order dated 11.2.2009, petitioners-defendants were given only three effective opportunities. On 15.11.2008, following order was passed: “Four DW are present out of which DW-1 and DW-2 cross- examined and discharged. At this stage, application for taking specimen signature of the plaintiff is filed. Copy given. Adjourned to 6-12-2008 for reply and consideration on the said application as well as DW.” C.R. NO.1052 OF 2009 #2# Thereafter, on the next date i.e 6.12.2008, following order was passed: “In the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted for filing of reply to the application for taking specimen signature of the plaintiff, Adjourned to 13.12.2008.” On 13.12.2008, following order was passed: “DW 4 cross examined and discharged. Adjourned to 24.1.2009 for remaining Dws and reply and consideration of application for taking specimen signature of the plaintiff.” On 24.1.2009, following order was passed: “DW-3 Sanjay Kumar is present, examined and discharged. Ld counsel for the plaintiffs has not filed reply to the application of the defendants for taking specimen thumb impressions of the plaintiffs. Heard and perused the record. The plaintiffs in para No.4 of the plaint have alleged that the defendants impersonated the plaintiffs before Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of impugned lease deed dated 20.6.1991. As the plaintiffs have impliedly denied their signatures on disputed documents therefore, application is allowed for resolving the said controversy effectively. Specimen thumb impressions are taken in my presence and both the plaintiffs are identified by their counsel. Adjourned to 11.2.2009 for DW subject to last opportunity. Summon be given dasti, if so required.” Then, the case was adjourned to 11.2.2009. On 11.2.2009, impugned order was passed and the evidence of the petitioners-defendants was closed in default. Learned counsel submits that in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitioners- defendants or they are adopting any delaying tactics to delay the matter. He further contends that the evidence sought to be produced as well as the evidence of the remaining witness is absolutely necessary for just and C.R. NO.1052 OF 2009 #3# proper decision of the case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. From the perusal of the zimni orders reproduced above, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitioners-defendants to lead their evidence. In view of the above, orders dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure P.1) passed by the learned trial Court are set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioners by adjourning the case at short intervals on dates to be fixed by it subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as total costs, to be paid to the respondents-plaintiffs in equal shares. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondents as it would result in unnecessarily delaying the matter and expenses for the other party. In any case, respondents-plaintiffs are being compensated by way of costs. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. March 04, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE