IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-21948 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.08.2011 Smt. Rachna Goyal ...Petitioner Versus M/s D.D.Gears Ltd. and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated February 22 nd, 2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, whereby, the evidence of the petitioner was closed. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents. Petitioner's statement, of course, through her attorney has already been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner be given one opportunity to lead her entire evidence and that too on her own responsibility. The case before the trial Court is now fixed for August 25 th, 2011. 3. No doubt, the object of declining request for adjournment for leading evidence or any other substantial cause, is to expedite the disposal. If on one hand, a party is denied such an opportunity and simultaneously adjournment is granted, the very purpose gets frustrated. Closure of evidence is not a ritual nor it is aimed at penalizing a party. Will the Court not be well advised if the Court simultaneously provides such adjournment also for the remaining evidence of the petitioner. The answer can only be in the affirmative. Criminal Misc. No. M-21948 of 2010 -2- .. 4. In view of the above, the petition is accepted and the order under challenge is set-aside. The petitioner is accorded one opportunity to produce her entire evidence on the date fixed, that is, August 25 th, 2011, subject to payment of conditional costs of Rs. 5,000/-. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 01.08.2011 som