Civil Revision No. 1240 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1240 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.3.2010 Moksh Gupta ..... Petitioner vs Parmanand Gupta ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order of the court. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,45,000/- filed by the petitioner against the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 22.7.2008. After filing of written statement, the issues were framed on 16.2.2009 and the case was fixed for the first time for evidence on 24.4.2009, on which date the case was transferred and the same was adjourned to 30.5.2009. On the adjourned date i.e. 30.5.2009, one PW was examined in chief and his cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the defendant/respondent. On the next date of hearing one PW was partly examined and the case was adjourned to 10.10.2009 on which date the case was adjourned to 15.12.2009. The learned trial court on request of counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff adjourned the case for 2.2.2010 subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. It was submitted that the petitioner had wrongly noted the date as 9.2.2010 instead of 2.2.2010 and could not present himself which resulted in passing of the impugned order. It was further submitted that the petitioner is not delaying the proceedings in the suit filed by him for recovery as the same will defeat his claim. He prayed Civil Revision No. 1240 of 2010 (2) that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the next date. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that aim of the petitioner is only to delay the proceedings. He has also not paid the costs imposed on 15.12.2009. He submitted that the order of the court below is perfectly right as number of opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the parties are borne out from the record. Admittedly, on few dates the plaintiff is at fault for not producing the evidence. However, it is not only due to the fault of the petitioner the delay occurred in conclusion of trial. After the framing of issues when the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner, it was transferred to some other court and thereafter the petitioner examined himself but the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the defendant/respondent for cross-examination. On the date when the impugned order was passed, the plaintiff/petitioner noted down wrong date which cannot be said to be intentional. Moreover, it is a suit for recovery filed by the petitioner and admittedly he cannot be said to be interested in delaying the proceedings. The case is stated to be fixed before the court below on 26.3.2010. In view of the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 2.2.2010, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the next date to be fixed by it after 26.3.2010. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent in addition to the costs already imposed by the learned trial court. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete his entire evidence on the date to be fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 25.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge