Civil Revision No. 6091 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6091 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.10.2009 Surjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Ranjit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 25.9.2009, whereby the defendant has been given an opportunity to lead evidence. Earlier, evidence of the defendant was closed vide order dated 1.14.2008. This Court granted one effective opportunity to the defendant to lead his evidence, subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs. The costs were paid on 4.8.2008, but the application for leading secondary evidence was yet pending. Since the application was pending, the defendant sought an opportunity to lead evidence, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide the order impugned in Civil Revision No. 6091 of 2009 (O&M) [2] the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the defendant could lead evidence only on 4.8.2008. Since the defendant has failed to lead evidence on the said date, the defendant cannot be permitted to lead evidence now. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. On 4.8.2008, the plaintiff has received the costs imposed by this Court. On the said date, an application for permission to lead secondary evidence was pending. The plaintiff was contesting the said application. It was thereafter, the application has been decided and now the defendant has been given opportunity to lead evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 23-10-2009 ds