IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6076 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 26th October, 2009. Virender Petitioner through Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate Versus Smt. Savita & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge [Senior Division], Gurgaon whereby the petitioner – plaintiff's evidence has been ordered to be closed on the ground that three effective opportunities have already been granted to adduce his entire evidence. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard. It is pointed out that three official witnesses are required to be summoned and the petitioner-plaintiff has already deposited the requisite diet money etc. but they did not turn up despite service. Having heard the counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice, the trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce the three official witnesses through the court process. The Civil Court shall take necessary steps as per law to ensure the presence of the witnesses summoned by the petitioner, who shall also pay costs of Rs.3500/- to the respondents. This revision petition is allowed accordingly. Dasti. October 26, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE