C.R. No. 303 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 303 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.1.2011 Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation ......Petitioner Versus Satish Kumar Jain and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Satish Kumar Jain had filed suit for declaration challenging the seniority list and sought promotion from the date defendants No.2 and 3 were promoted. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Court on 5.8.2005, and thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff closed his evidence on 12.1.2010. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 19.2.2010 and 7.4.2010 for defendants' evidence. On 25.5.2010 the case was transferred to another Court and was adjourned to 28.7.2010 for defendants' evidence. However, on the said date no evidence could be led by the defendants and the case was adjourned to 27.9.2010. On the said date, defendants' witness was present but could not be cross-examined by the plaintiff and hence, the case was adjourned to 13.11.2010. On the said date, the defence witness could C.R. No. 303 of 2011 2 not appear as he was deputed on duty for procurement and distribution of seeds as the sowing season for wheat crop was in progress. The case was adjourned to 26.11.2010 and thereafter to 2.12.2010 for cross-examination of the defence witness. However, on 2.12.2010 the impugned order was passed whereby the defendants' evidence was closed. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to enable him to complete its evidence at its own risk and responsibility. In the present case, issues were framed in August 2005, and the plaintiff closed his evidence on 12.1.2010. The defendants had produced their witness on 27.9.2010, but on the said date the witness could not be cross-examined by the plaintiff and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of the said witness. The said witness, however, could not be produced by the defendants on the adjourned two dates as he was on duty for procurement and distribution of seeds. In case, the petitioner is allowed to lead its evidence, the suit would be decided on merits. Accordingly, keeping in view the interest of justice, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude its evidence at its own risk and responsibility and thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE January 17, 2011 Anand