Civil Revision No. 2608 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2608 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 22 , 2010 Sukhdev Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Geetan Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order closing the evidence of the petitioner on the ground that eight opportunities have been granted to him for this purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though this fact is not incorrect yet on one date prior to the date fixed the mother of the attesting witness had expired and that is why he could not appear for giving his evidence. Learned counsel has brought to my notice that the case is fixed for 05.05.2010 for the evidence of the respondent. No evidence has been led by the defendant-respondent so far. In the circumstances it would be in the interest of justice if the Civil Revision No. 2608 of 2010 2 petitioner is permitted to present the second attesting witness to give his evidence. Consequently the petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence on the date fixed i.e. 05.05.2010 at his own responsibility. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in this regard. Further this opportunity shall be granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- to be paid by way of demand draft in favour of the respondent on the date fixed. Copy be supplied to learned counsel dasti under signatures of the Court Secretary. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 22, 2010 sunita