Civil Revision No. 7703 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7703 of 2011 Date of decision. 14.12.2011 Raj Kumar and another .... Petitioners Versus Yudhistar and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Raj Kumar and Smt. Hardevi, the plaintiffs have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ratia, District Fatehabad whereby the evidence of the petitioners has been closed by order of the court. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,92,592/- as compensation for loss caused to their standing crops. The date fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs had been 02.12.2011. Cross-examination of one witness was stated on that day to have been partly recorded by the Court Commissioner and was deferred for the fact that the court time was over. Date was given for recording his remaining cross-examination. However, as no other witness was present, learned trial court closed the evidence of Civil Revision No. 7703 of 2011 --2-- the plaintiffs. Learned trial court has observed that the plaintiffs have not made any efforts to name the witnesses in the list of witnesses and had already availed many effective opportunities. I have heard Mr. V. Ramswaroop, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that only Jagdish Lal, Ram Kumar and Office Kanungo, Ratia are left to be examined in this case. He has submitted that they have been summoned in this case and they did not appear despite service. According to him, in this situation, it was the duty of the court to secure their presence in the witness box for the plaintiffs. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs would lose their case if they were not allowed to lead their evidence. He has submitted that if learned trial court found the plaintiffs to have been at fault in bringing their evidence, further opportunity could be granted to them subject to payment of costs. He has submitted that the impugned order, thus, suffers from illegality and is prayed to be set aside with grant of one clear opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence with dasti summons for the witnesses. Office Kanungo, Ratia is an official witness. He cannot be brought by the plaintiffs with themselves. To secure his presence in the court, he would be required to be summoned. The other witness named Jagdish Lal and Ram Kumar have also shown on the record to have been summoned. When these witnesses had been summoned by the plaintiffs, even if they are not named in the list of witnesses or the plaintiffs had Civil Revision No. 7703 of 2011 --3-- failed to submit a list of witnesses that would hardly make any difference. The court is there to assist the parties in proving their claim and it has to take into account the difficulties of the parties while granting or refusing adjournment for the evidence. For these reasons, the trial court does not appear to have been justified in closing the evidence of the petitioners. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one clear opportunity to the petitioners-plaintiffs to produce their evidence and to give dasti summons of the witnesses to them for the date fixed. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 14.12.2011 dinesh