Civil Revision No. 7461 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7461 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 5th, 2011 Tarlochan Singh .... Petitioner Versus Manish Goel .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr.Vishal Sharma Haritwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Tarlochan Singh, defendant, who is facing a claim of Rs.82,000/- brought against him by Manish Goel by way of suit for recovery, had applied for sending the pronote and receipt dated 21.3.2005 to Government Press, Nasik for examination for the age of the revenue stamps used thereon. The said application was dismissed on 14.10.2010. The defendant filed a revision petition against the said order dated 14.10.2010 and the said revision petition, bearing CR No.1924 of 2011, has been dismissed by this court on 29.3.2011. Thereafter, the defendant is said to have availed more than 15 opportunities to lead its evidence at its own responsibility and noticing that no sincere efforts have been made to summon the official of Government Press, Nasik to lead the evidence, the evidence of the defendant has been closed by Civil Revision No. 7461 of 2011 2 .. learned Additional civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulha vide order dated 11.11.2011. It is this order, which is impugned by Tarlochan Singh by way of this revision petition, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Mr. Vishal Sharma Haritwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a copy of application dated 11.12.2010 (Annexure P4) vide which Tarlochan Singh applied for permission to deposit diet money of the witness from Government Press, Nasik, whom he wanted so summon with relevant record. A sum of Rs.2050/- was ordered to be deposited for the witness. The said witness is not within the reach of defendant to be produced in the court and, therefore, the court was to summon the said witness. The application for sending the pronote and receipt to the Government Press, Nasik was dismissed on 14.10.2010 and the defendant had deposited the diet money of the witness soon thereafter without even waiting for the result of his revision petition. So, the defendant has not been at fault in leading his evidence. Learned trial court in a case where witness is to be summoned from a distant place is not only required to give adequate time to the party seeking to examine him but is also required to adjourn the case to such a date as between the two dates, summons could reach the witness. If within a period of 7 - 8 months, 15 opportunities, as stated by learned trial court, have been granted to the defendant to lead his evidence, it is not possible for him to serve such a witness. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the Civil Revision No. 7461 of 2011 3 .. impugned order cannot be sustained. The revision petition is, consequently, allowed and setting aside the impugned order, I direct learned trial court to give two effective opportunities to the defendant to produce his evidence and give dasti process to him of the witness from Government Press, Nasik. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 5th, 2011 som