Civil Revision No. 7601 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7601 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 08.12.2011 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus Rajesh Kumar & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocate for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) In a suit filed by plaintiff on 24.04.2006 for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 15.03.2004 executed by defendant-petitioner in favour of defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-respondents and claimed to be joint owners of suit land as members of JHF. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 closed its evidence on 03.06.2010. After closing evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents, the case was adjourned for evidence of defendants. Thereafter defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application dated 14.10.2010 under Order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement. The trial Court dismissed the application for amendment of written statement on 13.09.2011 and adjourned the case for defendants' evidence at own responsibility. Thereafter, the defendants were to led their evidence. On 14.11.2011, the defendants closed their oral Civil Revision No. 7601 of 2011 (O&M) 2 evidence and sought time to tender documents. The case was then adjourned to 19.11.2011 for tendering documents by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as for evidence of defendant No. 3-petitioner. However, vide order dated 21.11.2011, the trial Court adjourned the case for documentary evidence of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 but closed the evidence of defendant No. 3-petitioner. In the present revision petition, challenge is to the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gulha vide which the evidence of the petitioner was closed. After going through the file, one thing is clear that defendant No. 3-petitioner has not unnecessarily delayed the proceedings in the suit. The trial Court is directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No. 3 to conclude the entire evidence. Order dated 21.11.2011 is set aside subject to payment of Rs.3,000 as cost. Accordingly, civil revision is allowed with costs and if respondents have any objection, they are at liberty to approach the Court. December 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE