IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3249 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 22, 2011. Ram Dhan ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Sanjiv Kumar and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Another copy of paperbook alongwith copies of orders has been filed by the petitioner. The same is taken on record. The file is reconstructed. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 25.03.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Hoshiarpur vide which evidence of the petitioner was closed. CR No.3249 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, an application for initiating contempt of court proceedings against respondent-defendant has been filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure in the pending suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff, which was contested by respondent-defendant. Issues were framed on the said application on 12.08.2005. Thereafter, many opportunities were availed by the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and vide impugned order dated 25.03.2010 his evidence was closed by learned trial Court by passing the following order:- “No evidence of the plaintiff is present despite last and final opportunity and plaintiff requested for adjournment which is not proper. Since the plaintiff has been given numerous opportunities to conclude its remaining evidence but remaining evidence of the plaintiff has not come present, therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff is hereby closed by order. Now to come up on 03.05.2010 for evidence of the defendant at own responsibility.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that his affidavit regarding examination-in-chief has already been tendered on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff before learned trial Court on 24.08.2006 and that however, on that day the case was adjourned for his cross-examination. Thereafter, he was never cross-examined on behalf of respondent-defendant. Hence, it is contended that only plea of petitioner-plaintiff is that he be 2 CR No.3249 of 2010 permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of respondent-defendant so that his statement be read into evidence. Though perusal of all the Zimni orders passed by learned trial Court in this case shows that many opportunities were availed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the impugned was passed and hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court by passing the impugned order, however, in the interest of justice as affidavit regarding examination-in-chief of petitioner-plaintiff is already on the record and his request is only for cross-examination on behalf of respondent-defendant, the said prayer can be accepted. Hence, the impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to produce himself for the purpose of cross-examination by respondent- defendant subject to payment of `5,000/- as costs which shall be a condition precedent. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 22, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3