C.R. No.1018 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1018 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.3.2008 Shiv Mandir Pabbian Charitable Society,Dharamkot .....Petitioner Vs. Ashwani Kumar and another ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, whereby its evidence has been closed by order, on the ground that the case is old and, therefore, no further opportunity is to be granted to lead evidence. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that on 20.5.2005, 4 AWs were present in Court and were partly examined by the respondent. Their examination, however, was deferred at the request of counsel for the respondent. On 9.9.2005, the case was adjourned, as there was chance of a compromise. On 21.4.2006, 3 AWs were present for cross-examination but their cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the respondent. On 4.8.2006, AWs Ajit Singh and Sham Lal were cross- examined, whereas cross-examination of AW-4 Harnek Singh was deferred for 10.11.2006. On 10.11.2006, no witness was present and the case was adjourned to 16.3.2007. On 16.3.2007, as no witness was present, the case was again adjourned to 14.9.2007. On 14.9.2007, the petitioner's witnesses C.R. No.1018 of 2008 2 were present but could not be cross-examined, as counsel for the respondent was not available and the case was adjourned to 23.11.2007, on which date, the petitioner's evidence was closed by order. It is contended that the petitioner's witnesses were present on a large number of dates but could not be cross-examined, as counsel for the respondent sought an adjournment. It is, therefore, prayed that in case the petitioner is not granted one last opportunity to lead its entire evidence, it would suffer serious prejudice. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, as also the interim orders referred to herein above. The submissions by counsel for the petitioner, appear to be prima facie correct. Cross-examination of the petitioner's witnesses was deferred on numerous occasions, as counsel for the respondent sought deferment of their cross-examination. Consequently, though the petitioner was remiss in its obligation to lead evidence expeditiously, a part of the delay has to be attributed to the respondents. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 23.11.2007 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one last effective opportunity to the petitioner, to lead its entire evidence in the affirmative. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not lead its evidence on a date, to be fixed by the trial Court, the petitioner's evidence shall be deemed to have been closed by order without any further opportunity. 13.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE