IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7745 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: December 14, 2011 Harbans Lal Sehgal .. Petitioner Vs. Sumitra Devi and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri, has been challenged by way of present revision petition claiming that he is the contesting defendant and owner of the property by way of purchase of the same and it is not a benami transaction. However, he could not appear at the appropriate stage of the trial. Heard. It may be noticed that besides defendant No.1, there are other defendants, who are the subsequent purchasers, as stated by the counsel, who are contesting the suit. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that there are no sufficient grounds for setting aside the same and to set the clock back to the position as it was in the year 2007. However, the petitioner could be allowed to join from the present stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the case is now fixed for the evidence of the defendant No.4. In this situation, if the evidence of all the defendants has not been closed, then the petitioner would Civil Revision No. 7745 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** be allowed to join from the present stage and would be at liberty to appear himself and examine any other witness. Disposed of accordingly. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move to this court for recalling this order. December 14, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge