Civil Revision No. 5702 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5702 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Surinder Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Tersem Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Surinder Kaur, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Vide the impugned order, learned trial court has closed the evidence of the plaintiff and has fixed the case for evidence of the defendants. Learned trial court has observed that the issues in this case were framed in the year 2007 and thereafter the plaintiff availed numerous effective opportunities for leading her evidence. According to learned trial court, these opportunities included last and special last opportunity. According to learned trial court, the plaintiff failed to conclude her evidence despite all these opportunities and finding no justification for grant of further adjournment to the plaintiff for her evidence, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the court. Civil Revision No. 5702 of 2011 --2-- Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision-petition. I have heard Mr. S.K. Bawa, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. No doubt the plaintiff has availed a good number of opportunities, yet it can not be said that the case remained pending for evidence of the plaintiff only. Other proceedings regarding amendment of the plaint etc. intervened the evidence of the plaintiff. On 10.05.2011, moreover, plaintiff's witnesses were present and the examination-in-chief was recorded but their cross-examination was deferred on the request of learned counsel for the defendants. On the next date, Harmesh Kumar could not bring the complete record and for that reason, case was adjourned. On the next date the order has been made closing the evidence. The circumstances noticed above reveal that though the plaintiff had been negligent in bringing her evidence, yet she deserved one more opportunity subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted. The order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P- 2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, to be paid to the defendants. Learned trial court is directed to give one clear and effective opportunity to the plaintiff to lead her evidence. She may be given dasti summons as well for the witnesses, she seeks to examine. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh