Civil Revision No. 726 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 726 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.2.2009 State of Punjab ..... Petitioner vs Sat Pal Jindal ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 3.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, whereby evidence of the petitioner-State 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 respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 88,11,447/- from the respondent- defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed on 20.7.2006 and issues were framed on 8.12.2006. The plaintiff filed list of witnesses on 20.4.2007 for summoning nine witnesses and also deposited the diet money. The plaintiff-petitioner examined four witnesses and thereafter the case was adjourned to 3.12.2008. On the said date, no witness was present, as the court had not issued any summon to the remaining witnesses. He further submitted that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner-State will complete its entire evidence on the date fixed. The only help required from the court is regarding summoning of witnesses. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. The case is fixed for hearing before the court Civil Revision No. 726 of 2009 (2) below on 25.2.2009. From the facts of the case, as mentioned above, in my opinion, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of one opportunity to lead its evidence. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 3.12.2008, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-State for completing its evidence on the date already fixed i.e. 25.2.2009. 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 it fails to conclude the entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 10.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge