Civil Revision No. 7008 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7008 of 2011 Date of decision. 16.11.2011 Azad Youth Club, Gazikot .... Petitioner Versus Banarsi Dass and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff for setting aside the order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by court order. The suit brought by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful and smooth functioning of Azad Youth Club, village Gazikot, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 25.08.2011. On the said date, one witness namely Pawan Kumar appeared and was cross- examined. Since no other witness was present, request of learned Civil Revision No. 7008 of 2011 --2-- counsel for the plaintiff for adjournment was declined. It was further mentioned in the impugned order that the record revealed the issues in the suit to have been framed on 29.03.2010 whereafter numerous opportunities have been availed by the plaintiff including last opportunity. I have heard Shri Suresh Kumar Arya,learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff has not availed a very long period for leading its evidence. According to him, it was not the case that no witness was brought on 25.08.2011. He has submitted that only one Gagandeep Singh Kalhotra, who had already been put in the witness box was left to be cross- examined and he alone has to be produced for cross-examination. The order passed by learned trial court is non-speaking one. The request for adjournment could not be without any reason. The said reason has not been noticed by learned trial court. Had the reason for the request been noticed, it might have been difficult for the trial court to decline the same. The evidence of a witness, whose examination in chief alone is recorded, is no evidence and plaintiff would be prejudiced in its case, if opportunity was not given to the other side for cross- examination of Gagandeep Singh Kalhotra. In these circumstances, I am unable to uphold the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by learned trial court and consequently the revision petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, subject to Civil Revision No. 7008 of 2011 --3-- payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. Learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to the plaintiff to put Gagandeep Singh Kalhotra, in the witness box for being cross-examined on behalf of the defendants. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 16.11.2011 JUDGE dinesh