C. R. No. 884 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 884 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 11, 2010 Bhagwan Singh Sandhu .... Petitioner Vs. Sohan Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for respondent no.1 – Caveator. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Bhagwan Singh Sandhu – defendant no.2 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, whereby evidence of defendant no.2 – petitioner has been closed by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent no.1. C. R. No. 884 of 2010 2 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of the record reveals that on 14.11.2009, the case was adjourned to 15.12.2009 for evidence of defendants for the first time and it was also made last opportunity by the trial court. In other words, first opportunity was given as last opportunity to the defendants for their evidence. However, on 15.12.2009, no evidence of the defendants was present and the case was adjourned to 21.01.2010 for evidence of the defendants, making it clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the defendants. On 21.01.2010, defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte and evidence of defendant no.2-petitioner was not present. It was observed that it was third effective opportunity for evidence of defendants, although factually it was only second opportunity for evidence of the defendants on 21.01.2010. The case was adjourned to 27.01.2010 for evidence of defendant no.2 and it was also ordered that evidence of defendant no.2 shall be deemed to be closed by court order on the next date of hearing i.e. on 27.01.2010. Accordingly, on 27.01.2010, evidence of defendant no.2 was closed by court order. The aforesaid history of events reveals that only three opportunities in all were given to defendant no.2. The trial court was under the wrong impression on 21.01.2010 that it was third opportunity for the evidence of the defendants, whereas it was only second opportunity for their evidence. In addition thereto, on the very first date of hearing, last opportunity was given to the defendants for their evidence. The aforesaid conduct of the trial court is not justified. Keeping in view all the circumstances, defendant no.2-petitioner is entitled to another opportunity for his evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court is set aside and the trial court is directed to give only one more opportunity to the petitioner-defendant no.2 to lead his entire evidence C. R. No. 884 of 2010 3 at own responsibility. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court to summon evidence, but it shall be no ground to seek any more opportunity, 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. February 11, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE