CR No.7714/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7714/2011 Date of decision: 14.12.2011. Chander Parkash Shukla ....................Petitioner v. Kanwaljit Singh .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta KKR,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Evidence of the tenant-defendant (petitioner herein) was closed by order vide order dated 5.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panchkula. Aggrieved against the same petitioner filed CR No.6425/2011 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2011, the operating part of which reads as under:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner through I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 5.10.2011, however, keeping in view the nature of the dispute, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity CR No.7714/2011 2 to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence at his own responsibility. This shall, however, be subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 5.10.2011 closing the evidence of the petitioner is set aside with further direction to the trial court to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the learned trial court subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs payable to respondent/plaintiff by way of demand draft. It is further clarified that payment of costs by way of Demand Draft is a condition precedent for affording one effective opportunity to the petitioner. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent/plaintiff to avoid unnecessary delay and expenditure. Moreover, the respondent is being compensated by way of payment of costs. However, still if the respondent is aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move an application for recalling this order.” In compliance of the aforesaid order the learned trial Court adjourned the case to 28.11.2011 for evidence of the petitioner. On 28.11.2011 the counsel for the petitioner made a statement before the CR No.7714/2011 3 trial court that neither the costs were paid to the plaintiff nor any witness was summoned. Accordingly, the learned trial court vide order dated 28.11.2011 again closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner and fixed the case on 9.12.2011 for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It is against this order that now the defendant- petitioner has filed the present revision petition on the ground that though on 28.11.2011 the petitioner had got prepared a draft (P4) amounting to Rs.5000/- to be paid to respondent-plaintiff towards costs, as directed by this Court, but still the learned trial court acting in a haste closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner without affording him one effective opportunity. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order dated 28.11.2011 though I am not at all impressed with the version put forth by the petitioner to cover up his failure to pay the costs in time, still keeping in view the larger interest of justice, the petitioner is again granted one last effective opportunity to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of another sum of Rs.5000/- as costs to be paid to respondent-plaintiff by way of demand draft. It is clarified that the costs of Rs.5000/- now imposed would be in addition to the costs already imposed vide order dated 20.10.2011 passed by this Court. Disposed of in the above terms. 14.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge