In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2448 of 2009 Date of decision: May 01, 2009 Sharda Devi .. Petitioner Vs. Anand Kaur .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P-3) vide which the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order, as well as order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure P-4), vide which application for leading additional evidence was also declined. Issues in the case were framed on 31.3.2006 and case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff for 16.11.2006 and it was also made clear to the parties vide order dated 31.3.2006 as under :- “.... No other issue is pressed or claimed nor arise from the pleadings of parties. Onus of proof not objected to. Now to come up on 16.11.2006 for P.Ws. As per amended provisions of CPC, both the parties will get three opportunities each for their respective evidence to prove their case. Further list of witnesses, PF, DM be filed within 7 days from today. If needful is not done then both the parties will bring their evidence at their own risk and responsibility and are not entitled to get assistance of the court. Arguments on injunction application will also be heard on 12.4.2006.” Then on 16.11.2006, the following order was passed :- Civil Revision No. 2448 of 2009 -2- *** “Four P.Ws. are present and tendered their evidence in examination in chief. Cross examination is deferred on the request of the learned counsel for the defendant. Now to come up on 10.4.2007 for concluding cross examination of the witnesses and the remaining evidence of the plaintiff is closed by order of the court. Arguments on the injunction application will also be heard on 19.1.2006.” On comparative study of both the orders, it transpires that officer was over jealous to close the evidence of the plaintiff for no reason and fault on the part of the plaintiff. The court has not assigned reasons for closing the evidence of the plaintiff only on the first date quo the remaining witnesses. It is not mentioned if evidence has been closed for not depositing the PF, DM and list of witnesses. This hurried order closing the evidence appears to have been passed for ulterior motives. The court at least should have asked the plaintiff to deposit the PF, DM and list of witnesses, if they were at fault. Under these circumstances, this petition is allowed and the plaintiff is directed to conclude his evidence within six months from today. Copy of the order is conveyed to the Presiding Officer where ever she is posted and be also placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for holding enquiry into the circumstances in which such order was passed. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondent may move to this court for recalling this order. May 01, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge