IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 435 of 2009 (M / S) Balvinder Singh. ….. Petitioner Versus Jagdeep Arora. ….. Respondent Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C. J. Vide the impugned order dated 3rd March 2009, the learned Trial Court has closed the evidence of the petitioner / defendant. Perusal of the impugned order shows that DW3 was not produced for his cross-examination despite having obtained several opportunities. In my considered opinion, whereas the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application for adjournment and, consequently, closing the evidence of DW3, it should not have closed the entire evidence of the petitioner / defendant because DW4 was yet to be summoned and examined. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is partly set aside. Whereas the part of the impugned order rejecting the Adjournment Application and closing the evidence of DW3 is upheld, the part of the impugned order closing the entire evidence of the petitioner / defendant set aside. The petitioner / defendant is permitted to examine DW4. The learned Trial Court shall ensure that all steps are taken by it for very expeditious disposal of this case. DW4 shall be summoned immediately for recording his evidence. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 24.03.2009 G