Civil Revision No.5444 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5444 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:07.09.2011 Vipan Kumar Sharma ......Petitioner Versus Ludhiana Stock Exchange Association Limited .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record are that, Vipan Kumar Sharma son of Jagdish Chander-petitioner-plaintiff(for short “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Ludhiana Stock Exchange Association Limited- respondent-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”) for recovery of `3,02,877.29 Paise. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff on 24.08.2011. On that day, as, no PW was present and adjournment was not allowed, therefore, the trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.08.2011(Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent- defendant, in order to save it from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation Civil Revision No.5444 of 2011(O&M) 2 expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when it can well be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. Be that as it may, but still the respondent-defendant would be at liberty to file the petition to review this order, without accepting the costs, if so desires. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 6. As is evident from the impugned order that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to close the evidence was that, the plaintiff did not conclude the evidence, despite last and final opportunity. 7. Ex facie, it may be true, but the bare perusal of the interim orders reproduced in the Grounds of Revision by the petitioner, would reveal that the plaintiff alone cannot be blamed in this context. The case was repeatedly adjourned for cross-examination on the request of counsel for the defendant and other grounds mentioned therein. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff, to conclude his evidence, subject to costs. To me, the evidence of the plaintiff is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. If the opportunity to conclude the evidence is not granted to the plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-defendant, particularly when, it can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. Moreover, the case is still fixed for evidence of the defendant. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order(Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiff, to Civil Revision No.5444 of 2011(O&M) 3 conclude his evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. September 07, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE