C.R.No.7445 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.7445 of 2010 Date of decision:16.11.2010 Gurcharan Singh ...Petitioner vs Jaswant Singh ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P5) whereby his evidence was closed by order of the Court. As per the facts established on record the present suit was instituted on9.6.2007. Issues were framed on 23.2.2008. The plaintiff- respondent closed his evidence on 4.4.2008. Thereafter, petitioner stepped into the witness box on 3.12.2008 and also examined Hardip Singh. Thereafter, due to some application filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the case remained pending and further evidence could not be produced. On 19.10.2010 the impugned order was passed observing that the petitioner had already availed sufficient opportunities and there was no justification for further allowing any opportunity to lead any evidence. It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that petitioner earlier also filed an application for C.R.No.7445 of 2010 2 leading additional evidence which was declined by the trial Court on 13.10.2010 observing that when the case was fixed for defendant;s evidence there was no question of moving any application for additional evidence. Similarly, after passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had filed an application for allowing him to lead additional evidence which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2010 observing that the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has very fairly stated that moving of an application for additional evidence which was rejected on 13.10.2010 was modified and the trial Court had rightly rejected the same by observing that case of the petitioner was still fixed for evidence. Similarly, learned counsel has further submitted that in case the impugned order dated 19.10.2010 is set aside and he is granted one opportunity to lead evidence at his own risk and responsibility the order dated 27.10.2010 need not be challenged. It is well settled that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are handmaid for the administration of justice and they are to be construed liberally. No doubt, petitioner availed many opportunities for leading his evidence, however, it cannot be disputed that when petitioner was leading his evidence some applications filed by the plaintiff respondent remained pending and, therefore, the evidence could not be led. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff-respondent as the case is still pending and the plaintiff-respondent has not led any evidence in rebuttal. Moreover, plaintiff-respondent can be very well compensated with C.R.No.7445 of 2010 3 suitable costs. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I deemed it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 19.10.2010 closing the evidence of the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petitioner is allowed one more opportunity to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility on the date fixed i.e. 17.11.2010 subject to payment of costs as assessed. It is made clear that payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for allowing the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility and no further opportunity shall be granted to him. A copy of this order, be handed over to the counsel for the petitioner under the signature of the Bench Secretary of this Court. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge November 16, 2010 rk