IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3169 of 2010 Date of Decision : 13.5.2010 State of Haryana and another ....Petitioners Versus Brij Bhushan and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. P.S.Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. There is no infirmity in the impugned order as the evidence has been rightly closed since the petitioners had been given 4 opportunities to adduce their evidence. The trial Court was right in observing that the suit is of the year 2002 and has been unnecessarily delayed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was concluded only in December 2009 and therefore the delay which has occurred in leading the evidence on behalf of the petitioners cannot be termed to be so much so as to defeat the rights of the petitioners. I am afraid such a contention cannot be raised so as to legitimise the laxity on the part of the petitioners. However, keeping in view purely the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose C.R.No.3169 of 2010 -2- of this revision petition at this stage without issuance of notice of motion, as resorting to this process is likely to delay the proceedings further, and the opposite party can always be compensated with costs to ensure equitable justice. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. The trial Court shall give only one effective opportunity to the petitioners to adduce the entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility. No other opportunity shall be given to them keeping in view the fact that the suit is of the year 2002. 13.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss