CR No.1651 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No.1651 of 2010 Decided on 17.11.2010. Satpal -- Petitioner vs. Vijay Kumar and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Satbir Rathore,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Puneet Jindal,Advocate, for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.2.2010 passed by the trial Court, by which evidence of the plaintiff has been ordered to be closed. At the time of notice of motion, the plaintiff had given up the examination of Raj Sharma, as a witness. He, however, prays for the examination of Ashwani Kumar, who has been ordered to be summoned by the trial Court through non bailable warrant vide order dated 05.2.2010, which reads as under:- “Present: Counsel for the parties. Bailable warrant issued against the PW Ashwani Kumar has not been received back three times. This Court is satisfied that he is evading his presence and his presence cannot be procured through CR No.1651 of 2010 2 bailable warrant. So, let non bailable warrants of PW Ashwani Kumar be issued. Summons issued to Smt.Raj Sharma received back with the report that he had gone somewhere for evading the service of summons upon her. This Court is satisfied that she is evading her presence and her presence cannot be procured through ordinary process. Therefore, she be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.2000/- with one surety in the like amount for 24.2.2010. Long adjournment is granted on the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to conclude its entire evidence on the next date at own responsibility failing which it shall be closed by order, Earlier also, the plaintiff was directed to conclude its evidence. So, last opportunity is granted to the plaintiff in the interest of justice. No further adjournment will be granted”. It is submitted that the non bailable warrants issued for procurement of the presence of Ashwani Kumar were not received back as it is evident from the impugned order which records that no evidence of the plaintiff is present nor served. It is submitted that despite the fact that non bailable warrants have been issued, the trial Court has closed the evidence on the ground that it is an old case. It is thus,submitted that the Court should have awaited service of non bailable warrants. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff has already been given many opportunities by the trial Court and the evidence has been rightly closed it being an old case. However, he could not dispute that on 5.2.2010 the trial Court had issued non bailable warrants for the purpose of procuring the presence of Ashwani Kumar as a witness CR No.1651 of 2010 3 and the said non bailable warrants were not received back as duly served In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to ensure service of non bailable warrants upon Ashwani Kumar and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. 17.11.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge