Civil Revision No. 6784 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6784 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 02.12.2011 Surjit Singh and another .... Petitioner Versus Ajmer Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Surjit Singh and Nachhattar Kaur @ Satya @ Satwant Kaur, defendants no. 3 and 4 have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the evidence of the petitioners has been closed by order of the court. The suit brought against the petitioners and others has been for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner of a residential house properly detailed in the head note of the plaint situated on GT Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana and the sale deeds executed by the Civil Revision No. 6784 of 2011 --2-- plaintiff dated 10.10.1991 registered on 05.12.1991 in favour of defendant no.1 and dated 10.10.1991 registered on 31.10.1991 in favour of defendant no.2 are illegal, null and void and based on fraud, conferring no rights on defendants no.1 and 2. The case was fixed for evidence of defendants no. 3 and 4 on 28.07.2011. Finding defendants no. 3 and 4 to have failed to bring any evidence on that date and that they had already availed numerous opportunities to conclude their evidence including last and final opportunity, the request for adjournment was not found justified and the evidence was closed by order of the court. I have heard Mr. Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit has been contested by defendants in sets. According to him, defendants no. 1 and 2 had constituted a distinct set of the defendants and to begin with, only they were leading their evidence. He drew my attention to the order dated 11.10.2007, vide which defendants no.1 and 2 appeared in the witness box and tendered their affidavits in their examination-in-chief . According to him, their evidence continued for long and the same was over only on 25.08.2010. According to him on 25.08.2010, learned trial court directed learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants no. 3 and 4 to file PF, DM and list of witnesses to be examined on their behalf. According to him, thereafter, Surjit Singh, defendant filed an application under Order 18 Rule 19 CPC for being examined through local commission on account of his advanced age and consequent inability to Civil Revision No. 6784 of 2011 --3-- come to the court. That application having been filed on 19.11.2010 was decided only on 17.05.2011. He has further submitted that the petitioners got two more opportunities thereafter and the evidence was closed. Keeping in view the position that emerges from the orders passed in the suit by learned trial court, which are extracted in the grounds of revision, defendants no.3 and 4 have not availed numerous opportunities and many last or final opportunities as is mentioned by learned trial court in the impugned order. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of one more opportunity to them to produce their evidence does not seem to be unjustified. Keeping in view the circumstances detailed above, the petitioners appear entitled to one more opportunity to produce their evidence at their responsibility. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Learned trial court is directed to give one effective opportunity to defendants no.3 and 4- petitioners to produce their evidence at responsibility and they may be given dasti summons of any witness, if so desired. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 02.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh