Civil Revision No. 1794 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1794 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.5.2010 Rajni Miahgi ....Petitioner Versus M/s Option Proprieties Private Limited ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. M.K.Jandiala, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that the closure of his evidence could not have been ordered by the learned Trial Court without examining employee witness, for whom diet money had been deposited as early as on 5.10.2009. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the application vide which the diet money had been deposited. There is none on behalf of the respondents to resist the view advocated. Even it is apparent, from a perusal of Annexure P-1, that the petitioner herein had applied for summoning of concerned Record Keeper through Chief Editor Dainik Bhaskar as a witness and deposited the diet money for the purpose aforementioned as the proposed witness was holding an office of employment and he had Civil Revision No. 1794 of 2010 2 to be summoned through proper channel. The learned Trial Court was not justified in ordering closure of the evidence without issuing the process for concerned Record Keeper through Chief Editor Dainik Bhaskar The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The matter shall be listed before the learned Trial Court on 7.6.2010. The learned Trial Court shall issue process for the presence of aforesaid witness for 14.6.2010. The process shall be obtained by the petitioners Dasti and it shall be responsibility of the petitioner to effect the service on that witness. The non effecting of service upon the witness shall not be an excuse for an adjournment. As the matter, in any case, has to come up on 14.6.2010 for recording of evidence of aforesaid witness, the petitioner too shall be entitled to entire the witness box, as his own witness and get his evidence recorded on that date. May 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE