Civil Revision No. 845 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 845 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 09 , 2010 Jaspal Singh Aulakh ...... Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. At the very outset learned counsel has prayed that two inadvertent typing errors have crept in. In the second line of para 3 at page 4 the date should be 19.05.2009 instead of 10.05.2009 and in the first line on page 5 the date should be 26.11.2009 and not 26.09.2009. Learned counsel is permitted to make the correction in the paper book. This petition has been filed against the order dated 2.2.2010 whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order. It is not disputed that the case was adjourned for 11.12.2009 which was the first date for the petitioner to lead his evidence. Much prior to that on 2.12.2009 petitioner moved an application to summon the official of the respondent-plaintiffs to prove one account statement and one circular. Civil Revision No. 845 of 2010(O&M) 2 The said official appeared on 11.12.2009 but could not be examined as he had not brought the summoned record. He was bound down by the Court for 12.1.2010 on which date he was present. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 18.1.2010 and 2.2.2010 on which date the evidence was closed. Learned counsel states that the matter is now fixed for 15.02.2010 for rebuttal and arguments and that only the petitioner is to be examined. Further argues that the petitioner would present himself for deposition on the said date and that this course of action would cause no prejudice to the respondents. In my opinion even though the order of the trial Court cannot be termed to be illegal, yet it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is allowed to give his own testimony on the date fixed and the respondents can be compensated by way of costs. In the circumstances the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to appear as his own witness on a date to be fixed subject to costs of Rs. 2500/- to be deposited by way of bank draft in favour of the State Bank of India, Khosa Pando Branch, District Moga through its Branch Manager. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 09 , 2010 sunita