IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R.No.341 of 2009 Date of order : 22.1.2009 Tarsem Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) Petitioner-defendant No.3 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P.1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nawanshahr whereby his evidence has been closed by order. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.1-plaintiff Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,75,163/- on 16.4.2004. After pleadings were complete, issues were framed on 22.8.2006 and after giving five opportunities, the evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff was closed on 12.6.2008. Thereafter, the case was fixed for petitioner-defendant No.3 evidence on 5.8.2008 and on the said date as no DW was present, the case was adjourned to 25.9.2008 subject to payment of Rs.100/- as costs. On 25.9.2008 also, petitioner-defendant No.3 prayed for another adjournment and the case was adjourned to 11.11.2008 subject to another payment of Rs.200/- as further costs being the last opportunity. On the next date i.e 11.11.2008, petitioner-defendant No.3 could not produce his evidence nor he was present in Court and his counsel also made a statement that he had no instructions in the matter and further even the costs had not been paid, C.R.No.341 of 2009 #2# therefore, learned Court proceeded to order the closing of the evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.3. Hence this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.3 has argued that petitioner-defendant No.3 suffers from a severe disability in his right leg due to an earlier motor vehicular accident, which got aggravated in an another accident suffered by him, just before the date fixed i.e 11.11.2008 and therefore, could not lead his evidence nor meet his counsel on the date fixed. It is further submitted that the parties were also in the process of compromising the matter. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner had not been able to contact his lawyer, his counsel had made a statement before the trial Court that he had no instructions in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported as Vol.CIV 1993 (2), PLR 689 titled Kirpal Kaur and others v. Kulwant Kaur and others to contend that the appropriate approach of the Court should have been to issue actual date notice to the petitioner- defendant No.3 before ordering the closure of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one last effective opportunity to lead his entire evidence subject to payment of costs. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. This is a suit for recovery. The petitioner is disputing the rate of interest being charged by the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown from the zimni orders that the matter was in the process of being compromised. He has also shown that for the reasons beyond his control, the petitioner could not present himself on the date fixed i.e C.R.No.341 of 2009 #3# 11.11.2008. His counsel made a statement before the Court that he had no instructions in the matter. Learned Single Judge of this Court, in the above cited case, has held that in a situation, where counsel appears before the Court and states that he has no instructions, interest of justice demand that a notice be sent to the client to pursue his claim. In the facts of the case, this Court deems it just and expedient in the interest of justice to grant one more effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant No.3 to lead his entire evidence lest it results in miscarriage of justice. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P.1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nawanshahr is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one last effective opportunity to lead his entire evidence on the next date of hearing fixed, or to be fixed by learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. January 22, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE