Civil Revision No.1245 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1245 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 23, 2011 Saranjit Kaur .....Petitioner v. Jasvir Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5082-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just objections. Civil Revision No.1245 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.1.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mansa, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that present suit has been filed by petitioner-wife against her husband and other family members of her in-laws for recovery of dowry articles or in alternative for recovery of Rs.2,14,400/-. Suit was contested by respondents. Issues were framed. Many opportunities were availed by petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence. However, evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order, which reads as under:- Civil Revision No.1245 of 2011(O&M) -2- “ PW3 Surjit Singh cross examined. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that two other witnesses are present, but no examination in chief of these witnesses have already been brought before the court by the plaintiff. Last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff on 20.10.2010 for 23.11.2010, but plaintiff has also failed to examine any other witness except PW3 on 23.11.2010. As such case was deferred only for cross-examination of PW3, which has been conducted today. Hence, there is no justification for recording other witnesses because it shows wrong intention on the part of the plaintiff, who is trying to bring witnesses after taking many adjournments on one date as one witness and then another witnesses on other date. As such these witnesses who were not brought earlier for the Chief Examination cannot be examined today. Accordingly, evidence of the plaintiff is closed by order. Adjourned to 27.1.2011 for defendant evidence.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that mere perusal of impugned order shows that two witnesses of petitioner were present on that day and despite that they were not examined on the plea that the case was adjourned for cross-examination of PW3-Surjit Singh. Perusal of the previous order, dated 20.12.2010 shows that though PW3 was present for his cross-examination and however, date was requested by counsel for the defendant, which was granted subject to cost of Rs.100/- imposed upon defendant. It is further contended that there is nothing in that order that the case was fixed for cross-examination of that witness only. It is further contended that petitioner-plaintiff requests for only one opportunity on which date the entire evidence of plaintiff will be produced at her own responsibility. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and other party can be compensated by way of cost. As a sequel to my above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set Civil Revision No.1245 of 2011(O&M) -3- aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to produce her entire evidence at her own responsibility subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 23.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge