Civil Revision No. 3061 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3061 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.5.2009 Smt. Baksho ..... Petitioner vs Gurbachan Singh and others ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner/ plaintiff was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed on 11.5.2005. On 20.5.2008, evidence of PW2 Sukhdev Kaur and the petitioner was recorded. The petitioner was cross-examined in part and her cross-examination was deferred for 26.9.2008 on the request of counsel for respondent no.1 as he wanted to put some documents to her. On the said date, no witness was present and the case was adjourned to 17.1.2009. On 17.1.2009, due to the death of close relative of the petitioner, she could not produce any evidence and the case was adjourned to 6.5.2009. On the next date due to non-production of evidence, impugned order came to be passed. The case is stated to be fixed before the trial court on 2.6.2009 for the evidence of the defendants/respondents. He submitted that the petitioner wanted to get PW3 Sohan Lal cross-examined, whose affidavit of evidence is already on record and the documents already on record are required to be exhibited. He prayed that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete her entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial court. Civil Revision No. 3061 of 2009 (2) The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was not leading evidence. As is evident from the paper-book, the case was adjourned for recording of remaining cross-examination of the petitioner on the request of counsel for respondent no. 1 as he wanted to put some documents to her. On 17.1.2009, she could not produce evidence due to the death of her close relative. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, while setting aside the impugned order dated 6.5.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing her evidence on the date to be fixed by the court. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the respondents. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get summons issued for any witness. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case she fails to complete the entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. In case the respondents are aggrieved against the aforesaid order they shall be at liberty to file application for recalling or modification of the same. 26.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge