C.R. No.3629 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3629 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.7.2008 Darshan Kaur and another .....Petitioners Vs. Surjit Singh ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is to an order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, whereby the petitioners' evidence has been closed by order. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 1.9.2007, the case was adjourned, as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 8.11.2007, PW Dharampal and Naib Sadar Kanungo were present but as they did not bring the record, they were bound down for 9.1.2008. On 4.1.2008, the case was taken up and as the Presiding Officer was to go on leave, the case was adjourned. On 13.3.2008, as no witness was present, the case was adjourned to 7.5.2008, on which date, the petitioners' evidence was closed by order. It is submitted that though, the petitioners summoned and produced two official witnesses, their failure to appear, despite being bound to appear before the trial Court, should not penalise the petitioners. These witnesses could not appear, as 7.5.2008 was declared as a holiday by the C.R. No.3629 of 2008 2 Punjab Government. The witnesses, who are government employees, were under an erroneous impression that Courts were also closed. It is submitted that in case, one opportunity is granted to the petitioners, subject to payment of Rs.1,000/-, to lead their entire evidence, the petitioners would do so without any further delay. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the interim orders and am satisfied that closure of the petitioners' evidence by order has caused serious prejudice. The witnesses produced by the petitioners are official witnesses and though bound to appear before the Court, failed to do so. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be penalised for mistake of the official witnesses. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 7.5.2008 is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioners to lead their entire evidence. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners. Notice is not being issued to the respondent, as it would entail unnecessary expenditure and cause further delay. The respondent is, however, being compensated with costs. In case, he has any grievance, he would be at liberty to approach this Court for recalling of the order. 9.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE