IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7896 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Smt.Rajbala ....Petitioner Versus Bobby and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.8.2010, (Annexure P-1), whereby the learned trial court closed the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff and subsequent order dated 12.8.2011, (Annexure P-2) vide which the application for leading additional evidence was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondent from intefering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and raising illegal construction over the property in dispute. The issues were framed on 16.2.2011, and the matter was adjourned for plaintiff's evidence. Despite the last opportunity, the plaintiff did not complete her evidence. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.8.2010, closed her evidence. The plaintiff moved an application for adducing additional evidence that too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.8.2011. Both orders dated 13.8.2010 and 12.8.2011, are being assailed in this revision petition. Learned counsel contends that the plaintiff-petitioner could not conclude her evidence, on account of her old age and illness. He further contends that in case one more opportunity is granted, it will not cause any prejudice to the respondents-defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merit of the case, this Court feels that in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserves to be granted one more opportunity. The purpose of law is to render substantial and real justice to the parties and not to halt the flow of justice. Accordingly, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders dated 13.8.2010 and 12.8.2011, are set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner- plaintiff to produce her entire evidence, on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court at her own risk and responsibility; but the same shall be subject to payment of ` 10,000/-, as costs. If the plaintiff fails to produce her entire evidence on the date so fixed, no further opportunity shall be granted to her. 20.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE