IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 4518 of 2007. Date of Decision: 10st January, 2008... Mrs. Manmohan Kaur ....Petitioner through Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate Versus Dr. Surjit Kumar Bansal ...Respondent through Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30th August, 2007 whereby the petitioner-defendant's evidence has been closed. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 3.6.1995 against the petitioner. In the said civil suit, the petitioner-defendant wanted to examine one Balbir Chand, a retired police official, as one of his witnesses. It further appears that the said Balbir Chand did not appear before the Court despite service. Consequently, bailable warrants were issued to secure his presence. On 29.8.2007, the Bailiff reported that when he visited the house of Balbir Chand, he was not found at home and his wife stated that he had gone out. However, on 30.8.2007, learned Civil Court closed the petitioner's evidence after observing that quite a number of opportunities have been granted to him in the past for leading his evidence. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Civil Revision No.4518 of 2007. ::-2-:: During the course of hearing, the relevance of the said witness, has also been explained. In these circumstances, the only issue to be considered by this Court is as to whether there is a remiss on the part of the petitioner in not producing his entire evidence. Undisputedly, Balbir Chand – the witness is sought to be examined in relation to an act of discharge of his official duties. He is not, thus, a private witness to be produced by the petitioner on his own. The petitioner was required to furnish his correct address and deposit diet money etc. which has admittedly been done by him. The report of the Bailiff dated 29.8.2007 also suggests that the address of the witness, furnished by the petitioner, is correct. In these circumstances, it can not be said that the petitioner was at fault in not examining the said witness. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this revision petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 30.8.2007 is set aside. However, keeping in view the fact that the suit is an old one, learned Civil Court is directed to adopt lawful coercive means to secure the presence of the aforesaid witness, at the earliest possible and dispose of the civil suit expeditiously . Dasti. Disposed of. January 10, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE