Civil Revision No.1436 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1436 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 9, 2011 Jasmer Singh @ Pappu and others .....Petitioners v. Siri Chand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.1.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karnal, vide which evidence of petitioners-defendants has been closed by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against petitioners. Suit was contested by present petitioners-defendants. Issues were framed. Evidence of plaintiff was closed. Case was fixed for evidence of defendants on 21.9.2010, thereafter on 11.11.2010, then on 10.1.2011 and thereafter on 24.1.2011. When no evidence was present on 24.1.2011, their evidence was closed by passing the impugned order, which reads as under:- “ No DW is present. Today was the last opportunity granted to the defendants to conclude its entire evidence subject to the condition that defendants shall conclude its entire evidence, failing which the same shall deemed to be Civil Revision No.1436 of 2011(O&M) -2- closed by court order. Further adjournment cannot be granted to the defendants to conclude its evidence. Therefore, the evidence of defendants is closed by court order. Now case is adjourned to 5.2.2011 for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that on the date when evidence was closed, petitioners- defendants could not appear as their nephew expired. However, there is no explanation as to why they did not appear on the previous dates of hearing. It is further contended that petitioners-defendants only intend to examine one of the defendants as their own witness and that his affidavit in examination-in-chief is already ready with them and that one opportunity be granted to them to examine one of the petitioners-defendants as their own witness. Though, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, however, in the interest of justice, as one of the petitioners-defendants wants to examine himself as witness, and no other witness is to be examined, one opportunity can be granted to them for this purpose and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. As a sequel to my above discussed, the present revision petition is accepted. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioners-defendants to examine one of the petitioners- defendants as their own witness, subject to payment of cost of `10,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 9.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge