Civil Revision No. 6874 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6874 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9th, 2011 Jatinder Pal Singh .... Petitioner Versus Harinder Pal Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Jatinder Pal Singh is defendant No.1, whose evidence has been closed by order dated 14.10.2011 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal in a suit brought against him and others by Harinder Pal Singh. The suit is for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Vide order dated 14.10.2011, learned trial court closed the evidence of defendants No. 1 and 2 by order of the court and this order has been questioned by Jatinder Pal singh by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. It is evident from the order sheet of the case, extracted in the grounds of revision, that on 1.9.2011, the plaintiff completed his Civil Revision No. 6874 of 2011 2 .. evidence. The case was adjourned to 9.9.2011 for evidence of the defendants at their own responsibility. On 9.9.2011, the very first date for evidence of the defendants, on failure of the defendants to bring their evidence, last opportunity was granted to them to produce their evidence at responsibility for 26.9.2011. On 26.9.2011, Jatinder Pal Singh, petitioner appeared as his own witness. His examination-in-chief was recorded and his cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff for 5.10.2011. On 5.10.2011, costs were paid. Two DWs were present. While cross-examination of Jatinder Pal singh was concluded, cross-examination of Manjit Kaur was deferred and the case was adjourned to 14.10.2011, on which date the evidence of the defendants was closed. After the evidence of the plaintiff was over on 1.9.2011, the defendants have been given a very short period to complete their evidence. The opportunities given are of a week or so and it does not show that adequate time has been given to the defendants to produce their evidence. In these circumstances, learned trial court does not seem to be justified in closing the evidence of the defendants vide order dated 14.10.2011. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside directing learned trial court to give one effective opportunity to defendants No. 1 to 3 to produce their evidence at their own responsibility. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 9th, 2011 som