C.R. No.2543 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2543 of 2007 Date of Decision: 25.3.2008 Kulbir Singh .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Kulwant Singh Major Singh & others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent no.3. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this revision petition is to set aside the order dated 18.4.2007, whereby the petitioner's evidence has been closed by order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court, failed to consider the petitioner's medical certificate brought to the notice of the trial Court by the petitioner's mother. It is further prayed that the learned trial Court decided the matter with respect to payment of Court fee only on 1.9.2006 and, therefore, the finding that the petitioner delayed in leading his evidence is factually incorrect. Counsel for the respondents, however, asserts that the petitioner, should have led his evidence expeditiously, as the matter has been pending since the year 2001. It is further stated that the medical certificate is false and should,therefore, be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. C.R. No.2543 of 2007 2 The submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court, decided the application for payment of Court fee on 1.9.2006, appears to be correct. Consequently, the observation that the petitioner delayed in leading his evidence, is incorrect. Even otherwise, the petitioner was indisposed and his mother made a request for a short adjournment. The trial Court, therefore, should have granted a pre-emptory adjournment. In view of what has been stated above, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 18.4.2007 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence, subject to payment of Rs.25,00/- as costs. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner. Notice is not being issued to the respondents, as it would entail unnecessary expenditure and cause further delay. The respondents are,however, being compensated with costs. In case, they have any grievance, they would be at liberty to approach this Court for recalling of the order. 25.3.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE