Civil Revision No. 7676 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7676 of 2011 Date of decision. 13.12.2011 Manjeet Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Rajinder Singh Taggar and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Manjeet Kaur, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.12.2011( Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby learned trial court has closed the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner. In the suit brought by Manjeet Kaur, plaintiff for possession by way of partition of some property and for accounts, the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant was over. At the stage of rebuttal evidence, the impugned order has been passed on 05.12.2011. The impugned order reveals that clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Patiala had been summoned and for securing his presence, bailable warrant had been issued, which was received unexecuted for 05.12.2011. In this situation, learned counsel for the plaintiff requested for a date, but learned trial Civil Revision No. 7676 of 2011 --2-- court closed the evidence observing that this was last and final opportunity to the plaintiff to conclude her evidence and therefore there was no justification for adjournment of the case. I have heard Ms. Deepali Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. The very fact that bailable warrant had been issued for summoning a clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Patiala and the same was received unexecuted would leave no doubt in the mind of this court that there was no reason with learned trial court to close the rebuttal evidence. Annexure P8/A is the copy of report made on the bailable warrant of the witness on 01.12.2011. It shows that the office was closed on account of ongoing strike in the Mini Secretariat and for that reason, the bailable warrant could not be executed. On the last date i.e. on 26.11.2011 also the bailable warrant of the witness had remained unexecuted. When once the party has sought the assistance of the court in summoning a witness, who is an official witness, the court cannot close the evidence when the witness was served in the first instance and bailable warrant issued on his non appearance could not be executed upon the witness. In such a situation, it is the responsibility of the court to cause the appearance of the witness for his examination. The record shows that even after the appearance of the witness some handwriting and fingerprint expert had to be examined by the plaintiff for which permission stood granted on the record. Civil Revision No. 7676 of 2011 --3-- In these circumstances, closing the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff cannot be held justified in any manner. The revision petition is , therefore, allowed and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to ensure the appearance of the witness and record his evidence as also take the other evidence sought to be led by the petitioner by giving her adequate opportunity for the said purpose. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 13.12.2011 dinesh