IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7351 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 30, 2011. Asha Chaudhary. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.B.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Indresh Goyal, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Naveen Sing Panwar, Advocate for respondents No.2(i)(ii), 2(iii)a,b,c 2(iv)(v)(vi), 5(a)(b)(c), 6 and 7. Respondent No.3 ex parte. None for respondent No.4. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned order dated 19.10.2010, Annexure P3 and order dated 01.11.2010, Annexure P4 passed by learned CR No.7351 of 2010 Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sonepat vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that affidavit of examination-in-chief of PW6 and PW7 was already tendered by petitioner-plaintiff and that they were to be cross-examined by counsel for the respondent-defendant. It is further contended that witnesses were present on 14.09.2010 and however, a date was requested by learned counsel for the respondent-defendant for cross-examination. Hence, it is contended that vide order dated 14.09.2010, case was adjourned due to no fault of petitioner-plaintiff but due to non-availability of counsel for defendant and however, on the next date of hearing i.e. 19.10.2010 vide impugned order, evidence of petitioner was closed. It is further contended that he does not want to lead any other oral evidence except cross- examination of PW6 and PW7 by opposite counsel so that their statements be read in evidence. It is also contended that he also wants to produce certified copies of some official documents, which are per se admissible in evidence. Though perusal of impugned orders show that earlier to 14.09.2010 sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence however, as on 14.09.2010 cross-examination of PW6 and PW7 was adjourned as counsel for the respondent-defendant was not available, one opportunity can be granted to plaintiff for producing these witnesses for cross-examination. 2 CR No.7351 of 2010 Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court are set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to plaintiff to produce PW6 and PW7 for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for defendant and to produce certified copies of official documents which are stated to be per se admissible in evidence subject to payment of `1,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 30, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3