CR No. 7940 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7940 of 2011 Date of Decision:21.12.2011 Karam Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Janak Raj and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this revision petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the trial court whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after examination of three PWs, the tendering of affidavit and cross- examination of the plaintiff is left. Learned counsel further submitted that the said evidence could not be produced due to certain unavoidable circumstances and in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on a date to be fixed by the trial court and the defendants-respondents can be compensated by way of costs. 3. Ordinarily, I would have issued notice of motion to the CR No. 7940 of 2011 -2- respondents which would prolong the case and entail unnecessary expenses to them. Therefore, the present petition is being disposed of without issuing notice of motion to the respondents. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the petitioner deserves to be granted one opportunity for tendering the affidavit and cross- examination. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction that one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to tender his affidavit and cross-examination on the date to be fixed by the trial court subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- to the defendants-respondents as costs. 5. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner fails to lead his aforesaid evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial court or to pay the costs, as stipulated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. It is further made clear that in case the defendants have any substantive grievance against this order, they may approach this Court. December 21, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE