Civil Revision No. 5839 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Civil Revision No. 5839 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 Charanjit Kaur and others ......Petitioners Versus Kirpal Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.7.2009, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners was closed by an order. Challenge in the suit is to the decree dated 22.8.2003 being the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiffs have examined four witnesses, but the evidence was closed after giving last opportunity to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners wish to examine Handwriting expert in order to prove their Civil Revision No. 5839 of 2009 [2] assertions that the vakalatnama does not bear the signatures of the plaintiffs in the previous proceedings. It is pointed out that the case is now fixed for 23.10.2009 for the evidence of the defendants and that the defendants have not led any evidence so far. The petitioners state that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioners, they shall conclude their entire evidence on the date fixed and shall also compensate the defendants for delay in leading evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the plaintiffs are permitted to lead and conclude their entire evidence on 23.10.2009 subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. On payment of costs on 23.10.2009, the plaintiffs shall be permitted to lead their entire evidence on the said date. Though it shall be open to the plaintiffs to seek the assistance of the Court to secure the presence of the witnesses, but non appearance of any witness on any ground, whatsoever, shall not entitle the plaintiff-petitioners to any other opportunity. Disposed of with in the above terms. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 12-10-2009 ds