IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.801 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 28.04.2008 Prem Nath ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate vs. Baldev Raj and others ....Respondent(s) through None for the respondents. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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 7.12.2007 whereby the petitioner-defendant's evidence has been closed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent-plaintiffs have been served through their counsel. No one, however, appears on their behalf. As may be noticed from the contents of the impugned order, the petitioner's evidence has been closed on the ground that he has already availed seven opportunities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that reasonable opportunities were granted to the petitioner, however, last opportunity could not be availed by him due to unfortunate demise of his father. In support of this assertion, he has attached Death Certificate (Annexure P-4). C.R. No.801 of 2008 -2- Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner-defendant and his co-defendants deserve to be granted at least one more opportunity to lead their entire evidence at their own responsibility. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 7.12.2007 is set aside. The learned trial Court shall grant one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant and his co-defendants to lead their entire evidence at their own responsibility, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to the respondent-plaintiffs. Dasti. April 28, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE