Civil Revision No. 7431 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7431 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 02.12.2011 Sukhwant Singh .... Petitioner Versus Karamjit Kaur and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Sukhwant Singh, the petitioner has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.03.2011(Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Zira, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff -petitioner has been closed by court order. Sukhwant Singh, plaintiff had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 16 kanals 12 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Hardasa, Tehsil Zira and that the special power of attorney registered on 31.03.2006 in the office of Sub Registrar, Zira and the sale deed dated 10.04.2006 are illegal, fake, false and fabricated documents. In the alternative, he Civil Revision No. 7431 of 2011 --2-- claimed relief of recovery of Rs.6,21,000/-. In the said suit, vide the impugned order, learned trial court noticed that the plaintiff had already availed 20 effective opportunities including seven last opportunities to conclude his evidence. Despite these opportunities, the evidence was not concluded and when no evidence was brought on 10.03.2011, his evidence was closed by order of the court. I have heard Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the decision of the application of the plaintiff for ad-interim injunction, the file was requisitioned by learned Appellate Court and it remained pending there for long. According to him, some witnesses were even summoned and the observation of learned trial court that the plaintiff did not file list of witnesses and diet money for summoning them is incorrect. He has further submitted that one opportunity was only requested from learned trial court, which was not even granted. He has, therefore, prayed for grant of one more opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Though, the issues were framed in this case on 01.09.2006 and even if it is believed that 20 effective opportunities including seven last opportunities have been granted thereafter to the plaintiff to lead his evidence, yet it cannot be said that the court was not to see the relevancy of the evidence which plaintiff wanted to lead and could not lead so far. For such a plaintiff, who did not lead his evidence with the required Civil Revision No. 7431 of 2011 --3-- promptitude, adjournment could be granted subject to payment of heavy costs. Closing of evidence midway, when the party was unable to lead his entire evidence would not amount to serving the cause of justice, for which the rules of procedure are meant. For the aforesaid reasons, though I do not find illegality in the impugned order, yet in the interest of justice, the plaintiff-petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity to lead his evidence. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and the impugned order is set aside. Learned trial court is directed to give one effective opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence and dasti summons for any witness, if desired, may be given to him. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 02.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh