Civil Revision No. 6256 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6256 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 13.10.2011 Mangta Singh .... Petitioner Versus Kirpal Singh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Viney Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by Mangta Singh, defendant under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide which the evidence of the defendant/petitioner has been closed by order of the court. Kirpal Singh, respondent had brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 14.08.2002, in which the court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on 31.10.2005. The proceedings ended in ex-parte judgment and decree against the defendant/petitioner on 31.04.2008. The defendant came to know of the same in the first week of April, 2009 when Kirpal Singh made this fact public. He then filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which was opposed by Kirpal Singh. In the said application, the impugned order has been passed on 22.09.2011 closing the evidence of the petitioner. Civil Revision No. 6256 of 2011 --2-- Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the defendant has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Viney Puri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned trial court has mentioned in the impugned order about the presence of one PW and his cross-examination. It has further been mentioned that no other PW is present despite last and final opportunity. It is further noticed that the application is quite old, pending since the year 2004, in which issues were framed on 07.12.2010 and the applicant has availed six opportunities including two last opportunities for his evidence. Learned trial court found no justification for further adjournment of the case for evidence of the petitioner and his evidence was closed, adjourning the case for evidence of the respondent to 01.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after framing of issues on 07.12.2010, the petitioner examined one witness but his cross-examination could not be conducted and had been deferred on the request of learned counsel for the respondent. It is further submitted by him that on 20.05.2011 the father of the petitioner got his affidavit duly attested for being tendered in evidence. According to him, learned trial court passed orders in the early hours of the day by observing that no PW was present. Learned trial court is said to have adjourned the case to 13.06.2011. According to him, on 13.06.2011, the father of the petitioner suffered heat stroke and medical aid was required Civil Revision No. 6256 of 2011 --3-- for him. According to him, when he reached the court premises, the case already stood adjourned to 20.08.2011. He has submitted that the petitioner came to know of the date of hearing as 28.09.2011 and, therefore, he did not appear on 20.08.2011 or the next date 22.09.2011. He has submitted that one effective opportunity may be granted to the petitioner so that he may complete his evidence. Learned trial court has not been right in observing that the application is pending from the year 2004. The record reveals that the decree sought to be set aside had been passed on 25.04.2008. If it is so, the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree could not have been pending from the year 2004. The impugned order itself makes clear that issues had been framed on 07.12.2010 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant caused inordinate delay in leading his evidence. If the petitioner has a good case to be proved in defence to the claim of the opposite party for specific performance of agreement of sale, then he should not be deprived of his right of contesting that claim. He is seeking only one effective opportunity to produce his entire evidence, which could be allowed in such circumstances on payment of costs. In these circumstances, I accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order directing learned trial court to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at his own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. 13.10.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE