Civil Revision No.2966 of 2011(O&M) -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2966 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 5, 2011 Khushnaseeb Singh and others .....Petitioners v. Jaspal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Parveen Kataria, 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/quashing of order dated 21.4.2011, Annexure P1, vide which evidence of the petitioners-defendants has been closed by order of the Court. 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 a suit for specific performance was filed by respondent -plaintiff against predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners, which was contested by their predecessor-in-interest. Issues were framed. Evidence of respondent-plaintiff was closed. Thereafter many opportunities were availed by predecessor-in-interest of petitioners and after his death, by present petitioners and however, evidence could not be concluded and hence, the same was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order, which reads as under:- “No evidence of the defendants is present. The ld. Counsel for the defendant requested for one more opportunity but the same is not justified as the defendants have already Civil Revision No.2966 of 2011(O&M) -2- availed sufficient opportunities to conclude their evidence since 10.4.2011 when the case was fixed for their evidence. From perusal of the file shows that defendants have availed 10 effective opportunities to adduce their evidence and they were also burdened with costs twice by the court and they were to adduce evidence at their responsibility as the list of witnesses was not filed by them. This case comes in the list of 100 oldest cases. Thus, the evidence of defendants is closed by order. Now to come up on 3.5.2011 for arguments.” The only plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioners is that after death of original defendant Shameer Singh, they were impleaded as his legal representatives and after their impleadment as legal representatives, only one opportunity was granted to them to lead evidence by learned trial Court. However, they have stepped into the shoes of Shameer Singh, who had already availed sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence. Evidence was closed by learned trial Court after granting ten effective opportunities to petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest. The present suit pertains to the year 2007. Hence, in view of these facts, no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that only one opportunity be granted to allow petitioner no.1 to examine himself as a witness. In view of this limited request, the same can be granted and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioners to examine petitioner no.1 as his own witness subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 5.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.2966 of 2011(O&M) -2- availed sufficient opportunities to conclude their evidence since 10.4.2011 when the case was fixed for their evidence. From perusal of the file shows that defendants have availed 10 effective opportunities to adduce their evidence and they were also burdened with costs twice by the court and they were to adduce evidence at their responsibility as the list of witnesses was not filed by them. This case comes in the list of 100 oldest cases. Thus, the evidence of defendants is closed by order. Now to come up on 3.5.2011 for arguments.” The only plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioners is that after death of original defendant Shameer Singh, they were impleaded as his legal representatives and after their impleadment as legal representatives, only one opportunity was granted to them to lead evidence by learned trial Court. However, they have stepped into the shoes of Shameer Singh, who had already availed sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence. Evidence was closed by learned trial Court after granting ten effective opportunities to petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest. The present suit pertains to the year 2007. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that only one opportunity be granted to allow petitioner no.1 to examine himself as a witness. In view of this limited request, the same can be granted and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioners to examine petitioner no.1 as his own witness subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 5.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.2966 of 2011(O&M) -2- `