CR No.6484 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6484 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 9.7.2010 Sukhwinder Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. Rajinder Singh alias Joginder Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondent No.1. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Khanna whereby evidence of defendant was closed by court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has earnestly requested that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner for leading his entire evidence on payment of costs. However, counsel for respondent No.l stated that there is no error in the order of the Court below, which could be interfered by this Court especially when the evidence has been closed on the basis of a conditional order. It is stated that statement was made by the counsel for the petitioner on 22.9.2009 that if the defendant would fail to lead evidence on the adjourned date, then his evidence would be deemed to have been closed. She has referred to various zimnie orders. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Generally this Court, in the interest of justice, on payment of CR No.6484 of 2009 (O&M) -2- costs, grants one opportunity to the parties to the lis for leading their entire evidence but in the present case, circumstances are different because on 22.9.2009 a statement was made by the counsel for the defendant to the effect that if the defendant would fail to lead evidence on the adjourned date, then his evidence may be considered closed. The order reads as under: “No evidence of the defendant is present inspite of last opportunity. Learned counsel for the defendant suffered the statement that he may be granted one more opportunity for his evidence failing which the same shall be deemed to be closed. In view of the said statement, last opportunity is granted to the defendant to lead its entire evidence on 14.10.2009 if defendant failed to lead its entire evidence on date fix, the same shall be deemed to be closed.” Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court exercising its supervisory powers in respect of the proceedings carried out before the Court below has to see whether there is an error in the order of the Court below but in the present case, to my mind, there is no error in the order of Court below while passing the impugned order because the said order has been passed on the basis of a statement suffered by none-else than the counsel for the defendant and the order is conditional in nature that in case the defendant would fail to lead his evidence, his evidence shall be deemed to be closed and it cannot be re-opened on the asking of the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition, which is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 9.7.2010 Judge Meenu