IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 719 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 17, 2011. Inder Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Dara Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashok Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2009 vide which the evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed by learned trial Court CR No.719 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. It has been averred by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that he has filed an application for summoning a witness i.e. Ravinder Pal Singh Chhabra, Document Writer who scribed the agreement in dispute on the first date of evidence i.e. 17.05.2008. He has further contended that summons for effecting service upon this witness were also taken Dasti by the petitioner-plaintiff and however, he refused to accept the same. The report dated 01.09.2009 in this regard of the concerned Process Server is also attached with the present petition as Annexure P2. He has also placed reliance upon 2001(3) Civil Court Cases 39(P&H), Raghbir Singh v. Dina Nath wherein it has been observed by this Court that if a summoned witness after service fails to appear before the Court, then the court should take recourse to the provisions envisaged under Order 16 CPC to secure his presence. He has also placed reliance upon 2001(3) Civil Court Cases 603 (P&H), Jaswinder Singh v. Inder Singh wherein as well it has been observed that a witness summoned and diet money was also deposited within time despite that he has not appeared hence, order closing evidence is not justified. These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. Prayer of the petitioner has been opposed merely on the ground that petitioner-plaintiff has already availed eight opportunities for the purpose. 2 CR No.719 of 2010 Hence, it is a fit case in which one opportunity should be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to examine Document Writer. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is, hereby, set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one final opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to produce and get examined Ravinder Pal Singh Chhabra, Document Writer by taking Dasti summons. The present petition disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 17, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3