IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R.No.224 of 2009 Date of order : 16.1.2009 Iqbal Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Mange Ram ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying for setting aside order dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Hisar whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Facts in brief are that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.95600/-, taken by the respondent-defendant on 1.6.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff states that although three effective opportunities have been granted to the petitioner, however, the entire evidence could not be led by him due to the fact that an effort to settle the dispute between the parties by way of compromise was in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice, one last opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the prayer deserves to be accepted. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed his affidavit to the effect that the matter was being in the process of compromise, therefore, this court is of the view that this was sufficient reason for giving one more opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Hisar is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one more effective opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff at his own responsibility to complete C.R.No.224 of 2009 #2# his entire evidence subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondent-defendant. Notice to the respondent-defendant is not being issued to avoid unnecessary expenses and delay in the matter as also the fact that the respondent-defendant is being compensated by payment of costs. However, in case of any grievance, respondent-defendant is given liberty to make appropriate application for recalling of the order. January 16,2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE