Civil Revision No. 1057 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1057 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.2.2009 M/s New Hind Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner vs M/s Prime Polypack Pvt. Ltd. and others ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner/ objector was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the execution proceedings as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of an execution filed by the respondent No.1 and 2/decree-holders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the execution was filed by respondent No.1 and 2/ decree-holders on 24.12.2002. It is submitted that the petitioner/objector for the first time, after service, filed affidavit of one Tehal Singh in support of the objection petition on 11.11.2008. His cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the decree-holder for 17.11.2008. On the adjourned date, as the file of the case was not traceable, the case was adjourned to 10.12.2008. On the said date of hearing as no witness was present, the case was adjourned as last opportunity. On 22.1.2009, evidence of three witnesses was concluded. The petitioner also tendered in evidence the affidavit of Amit Kumar, but his cross-examination was not done. However, counsel for the decree-holder moved an application for deleting his statement from the court record, notice of which was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has also served Civil Revision No. 1057 of 2009 (2) the other official witness, who could not come to the court as he had to appear in his personal case in another court. Inspite of that, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. As the official witness had been served and he could not appear because of reason beyond his control, the petitioner should not be made to suffer on that account as he had taken effective steps to summon the witness. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete its entire evidence on the date fixed. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was not leading evidence rather after its evidence started on 11.11.2008, it led evidence on each date of hearing. However, due to the non-appearance of the official witness, the petitioner could not conclude its evidence. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 22.1.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing its evidence on the date to be fixed by the court. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to respondent No.1 and 2/decree-holders. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get summons issued for any official witness. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case it fails to complete the entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. 27.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge