Civil Revision No. 1736 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1736 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.3.2009 M/s LPS Bossard Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner vs M/s Pioneer Wincon Ltd. ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner company was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,33,486.93 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 3.9.2008 passed by this court in Civil Revision No. 4709 of 2008, the petitioner company was allowed one opportunity to lead its entire evidence. The affidavit of the witness of the petitioner company was already on record but on the date when the impugned order was passed, the maternal aunt of the said witness suddenly expired and for that reason, which is beyond his control, he could not attend the court for his cross-examination and the opportunity granted by this court being last, the learned court below vide impugned order closed its evidence. The facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are evident from the application for adjournment filed by the petitioner before the learned court below which was rejected on the ground that this court had Civil Revision No. 1736 of 2009 (2) ordered for grant of one opportunity to the petitioner. As on the date when the representative of the petitioner was to be cross-examined his maternal aunt had expired which is a reason totally beyond his control and in case he had not been able to appear in the court for that reason, I do not find that it was any deliberate act on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings or circumvent the order already passed in its favour granting one opportunity for completing the evidence. The case is now fixed for the defendant's evidence on 22.4.2009. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 21.1.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing its evidence on the date already fixed by the court before the evidence of the defendant is recorded. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 27.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge