IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R.No.453 of 2009 Date of order : 28.1.2009 Gurmail Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Baljinder Singh ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) Facts giving rise to the petition are that respondent-Baljinder Singh filed a suit on 25.5.2007 for recovery of Rs.1,51,200/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 25.2.2005. Upon notice, written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant on 19.10.2007 inter alia claiming that the pronote was not signed by him. Issues were framed on 19.11.2007 and from 18.2.2008, respondent-plaintiff was given five opportunities to lead his evidence before closing it on 10.9.2008. Case, for the evidence of the petitioner-defendant, was, for the first time, listed on 17.10.2008. On 17.10.2008, DW MHC Gurdeep Singh of Police Station Kotwali Barnala did not turn up despite service. Accordingly, bailable warrants were issued for 8.12.2008. On 8.12.2008, the said DW-MHC Gurdeep Singh again was not present and there was no report also in that regard. On that date, statement of DW1 Head Constable Parkash Singh was recorded and the case was adjourned to 6.1.2009 by granting last opportunity to conclude the petitioner-defendant's evidence. On 6.1.2009, since no DW was present despite last opportunity, the evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed by order. It is, this order dated 6.1.2009, which has been challenged by C.R.No.453 of 2009 #2# filing this revision petition before this Court with a further prayer for granting one more effective opportunity to lead the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has argued that the petitioner had served a official witness, who is a Head Constable and despite that, he did not present himself, therefore, the Court before closing the evidence of the petitioner, should have taken recourse to coercive method for production of the said witness. Learned counsel further prays for one effective opportunity to lead his entire evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perusing the paper book, this Court is inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner-defendant. It is clear from the facts of this case that only three opportunities have been granted to the petitioner-defendant whereas in the zimni order dated 8.12.2008 (reproduced in para 4 at page 2 of the paper book), it has been wrongly recorded that numerous opportunities have been granted to the petitioner-defendant. It is also not disputed that the defence witness MHC Gurdeep Singh had been duly served by the petitioner- defendant and bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.1000/- with one surety in the like amount had been issued to secure his presence for 8.12.2008. It is apparent from the zimni order that there is no report regarding his absence. It can also not be disputed that the Court should have explored the possibility of taking recourse to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 Sub Rule (2) CPC to secure the presence of the witnesses. In view of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, present petition is allowed and order dated 6.1.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Sangrur is set aside. Learned Trial Court is directed to grant C.R.No.453 of 2009 #3# one more effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility on the next date fixed before it or any other date to be fixed subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. January 28, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE