Civil Revision No. 1191 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1191 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.4.2009 Bijan ..... Petitioner vs Yadram and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Through the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs against the petitioner/defendant no. 1 and respondents no. 3 to 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner only wanted to examine Sher Singh Namberdar and Agra Canal Patwary (Patrol), Palwal. He has already deposited diet money of the witnesses vide order dated 17.12.2008 but witness Sher Singh refused to accept the notice. Since the witnesses had refused to accept the service of notice, he was required to be summoned through the process of the court. He further submitted that the petitioner was not delaying the matter. His evidence started only on 31.10.2008. Prayer is that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date fixed already fixed before the learned court below. Civil Revision No. 1191 of 2009 (2) The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was delying the matter by seeking adjournments and not leading evidence. As is evident from the record, on the date when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner examined one DW. The petitioner had even deposited diet money for summoning of the other witness but the concerned witness has refused to accept service. The case is stated to be fixed before the learned court below on 5.5.2009. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.1.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner is set aside and the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date already fixed by the court. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the plaintiffs. The petitioner is at liberty to get the dasti summons/ process issued for the witnesses. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 17.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge