Civil Revision No.881 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.881 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 Suresh Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. Balvir Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.1.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phul, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiffs was closed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners-plaintiffs are not to examine any other witnesses and that rather witnesses of petitioner-plaintiffs were already examined and however, they were not cross-examined on behalf of respondent-defendants. It is further contended that as is clear from the various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court, as reproduced in the petition, on many dates witnesses used to come present and however, there was request on behalf of respondent- defendants for their cross-examination and hence, witnesses of petitioner- plaintiffs could not be cross-examined due to fault of respondent- defendants. It is further contended that in the meantime, an application for amendment of the written statement was also filed on behalf of the respondent-defendants, which was allowed by learned trial Court and thereafter the case was again fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses of Civil Revision No.881 of 2010(O&M) -2- petitioner-plaintiffs on behalf of the respondent-defendants. It is further contended that some official alongwith the record was also summoned by respondent-defendants from the Judicial Record Room, Ferozepur, for the purpose of cross-examining the witnesses of petitioner-plaintiffs, which was allowed by learned trial Court and however, on some of the dates, the witnesses of petitioner-plaintiffs could not be cross-examined as record- keeper could not come present alongwith the record. It is further contended that though on some of the dates witnesses of petitioner-plaintiffs also could not come present and however, petitioner-plaintiffs cannot be held to be sole responsible for delay in the disposal of the case, which was filed by petitioner-plaintiffs. 4. It is further contended that only one opportunity may be granted to petitioner-plaintiffs and they will produce the witnesses for cross-examination of respondent-defendants. 5. The impugned order passed by learned trial Court reads as under:- “ No PW is present. The perusal of the case file reveals that issues in the instant case were framed on dated 2.12.06. The plaintiff has availed numerous opportunities to lead evidence but has failed to conclude the same so far. I find no justification to grant any more opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff is closed by order accordingly. Now to come up on 17.1.11 for evidence of the defendant.” 6. The evidence of petitioner-plaintiffs was closed by learned trial Court on the plea that numerous opportunities were availed by them, without taking into consideration the fact that many dates for the cross- examination of witnesses of petitioner-plaintiffs were also sought by the defendants. 7. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order is set aside by accepting the present revision petition. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-plaintiffs to produce the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examining on behalf of respondent- defendants. Civil Revision No.881 of 2010(O&M) -3- 8. However, petitioner-plaintiffs are burdened with cost of Rs.1,000/- which shall be a condition precedent. 7.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge