Civil Revision No.7472 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7472 of 2011 Date of Decision : 05.12.2011 Sukhwinder Singh .......Petitioner Versus Kabal Singh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashok Aneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2011, vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order. 2. The learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court fell into error by passing the impugned order in spite of the fact that the diet money for summoning the official witnesses with record had already been deposited on 8.6.2011. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 29.7.2011, 13.9.2011 and 14.11.2011 for DWs. On 14.11.2011, the evidence of the defendant was closed by order. It is further contended that the learned trial Court wrongly observed that most of the evidence of the defendant had already been recorded. 1 Civil Revision No.7472 of 2011 3. It is evident from the record that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner-defendant had already availed four effective opportunities including the last opportunity. On 13.09.2011, the counsel for the defendant made a specific statement that he shall conclude the entire evidence on the next date of hearing, failing which, his evidence may be deemed to have been closed by order. However, on 14.11.2011 i.e. the adjourned date, he again failed to conclude the evidence as asserted by him on the previous date. If a defendant has deposited the diet money of the witnesses to issue summons, it does mean that it becomes the responsibility of the Court to run after the witnesses to invite to depose for the case of the defendant. The defendant himself, too, should be vigilant. 4. In this backdrop, without adverting to the merits of the present case, keeping in view that official with record have been sought to be examined, the same might help the learned Court to appreciate and adjudicate the matter with further precision and to advance the cause of justice, the present revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 is set aside and one more effective opportunity is granted to the petitioner-defendant for examining his witnesses on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. 5. The defendant may seek assistance of the Court for summoning the official witnesses, if any, by procuring dasti summons but it will be his responsibility to get the service effected upon the official witnesses. But he has to bring the private witnesses at his own responsibility without summons. He will not produce any other 2 Civil Revision No.7472 of 2011 witness except the witnesses the name of whom had already been furnished in the Court. However, the same shall be subject to the deposit of `15,000/- as costs. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 05.12.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3