IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5616 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2011. Hira Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Man Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 24.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kurukshetra vide which evidence of petitioner-defendant was ordered to be closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.5616 of 2011 It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner- defendant that an application was filed by respondent-defendant for adducing additional evidence in rebuttal and that the same was not opposed by petitioner-defendant on the plea that opportunity would also to be given to petitioner-defendant for additional evidence. It is further contended that though one opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to petitioner- defendant to produce additional evidence after evidence was adduced by respondent-plaintiff after rebuttal and however, witness could not come present and hence, evidence of petitioner-defendant was closed. It is contended that only one opportunity be given to petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence at his own responsibility by taking Dasti summons. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-defendant for producing additional evidence and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to produce additional evidence at his own responsibility by taking Dasti summons subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. However, non-service of summons will not be a ground for further opportunity for the purpose. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 16, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 2