C. R. No. 1716 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1716 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 15, 2010 Harinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Gurmeeta and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff Harinder Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. The petitioner also undertakes to pay the cost amount of Rs.500/- imposed on 06.01.2010 by the trial court. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court, as reproduced in the revision petition, reveals that the petitioner was granted five effective opportunities in all. It is C. R. No. 1716 of 2010 2 alleged in the revision petition that on 06.01.2010, the case was initially adjourned to 23.04.2010, but the date was changed in the absence of the petitioner to 27.01.2010. However, except self-serving affidavit of the petitioner himself, there is no other material on record in support of this contention. No affidavit of the counsel of the plaintiff-petitioner in the trial court has been produced nor copy of his brief or diary has been attached. On the other hand, the appellate court in the matter of temporary injunction, while disposing of miscellaneous appeal, directed disposal of the suit within six months. The instant revision petition has also been filed belatedly. Keeping in view all these circumstances, very heavy cost has to be imposed on the petitioner, although in my considered opinion, ends of justice would require that one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents, so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the instant revision petition, if notice of the revision petition is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. The plaintiff-petitioner may take assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but it shall be no ground to grant any more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence, even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non- appearance of any witness inspite of service, or for any other reason whatsoever. March 15, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE