IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5601 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.9.2011 Smt.Mishri Devi and another. ....... Petitioners. Versus Khoshya Motors Pvt.Ltd. ...... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK .... Present: Shri Anil Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. Smt.Mishri Devi and Shri Ajit Singh, the defendants before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul are aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul whereby their evidence has been closed by the order of the court. They have challenged the said order by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent-Khoshya Motors Pvt.Ltd. had brought a suit C.R.No.5601 of 2011 -2- ..... for recovery of Rs.4,10,000/- against the petitioners as sale price of the tractor sold to the petitioners. In the said case, the issues were framed and the plaintiff started its evidence on 18.12.2007. The plaintiff took about two years and two months to conclude its evidence and closed the same on 15.1.2010 (wrongly written as 15.1.2007 in the revision petition). The evidence of the defendants is claimed to have been closed vide order dated 3.8.2011. I have heard Shri Anil Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that learned trial court had not been justified in closing the evidence of the petitioners vide order dated 3.8.2011. According to him, adequate opportunity had not been given to the defendants-petitioners for leading their evidence. He has submitted that if the order dated 3.8.2011 is not quashed and opportunity is not given to the petitioners to lead their evidence, they will be ruined. It appears that the plaintiff was given two years and two months for leading its evidence while the defendants were given a little over six months to lead their evidence. It cannot, however, be said that the time taken by the plaintiff in leading its evidence would be the time required to be given to the other party to lead its evidence. Plaintiff in all cases gets more time to lead his evidence because when he comes to lead his evidence, the case is fresh and there is no pressure on the mind of the court to decide the case early. When comes the turn of the defendant, the case has already C.R.No.5601 of 2011 -3- ..... become old and pressure starts building in the mind of the court for deciding the case. However, this may not be taken as a consideration for accepting or rejecting this revision petition. This question has to be decided on the consideration as to whether effective opportunity had been given to the defendants to lead their evidence. It is evident from the record that no witness had been summoned by the defendants in their evidence. It is not mentioned in the revision petition as to what evidence was to be led by the defendants. Though for short durations, but eight effective opportunities are stated in the impugned order to have been given to the defendants to lead their evidence including the last opportunity. This fact is not disputed before me. It clearly shows that the defendants were not eager to lead any evidence and they were interested in passing away the time in a suit against them for recovery of a good amount. These circumstances clearly show that no case is made out for quashing the impugned order. Finding no illegality in the same, I dismiss the revision petition. September 14,2011 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) “SCM” JUDGE