Civil Revision No.4130 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4130 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: January 17, 2011 Bahadur Singh and others .....Petitioners v. Amarjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.4.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Rajpura, in a suit titled as Bahadur Singh & others v. Amarjit Singh and others. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It may be mentioned here that no-body is appearing on behalf of the respondents despite service. Hence, they are proceeded ex parte in this revision petition. Suit for possession by way of partition was filed by petitioner- plaintiffs. On the request of petitioner-plaintiffs, they were allowed to file rejoinder by this Court in earlier civil revision petition bearing No.4832 of 2008 with further direction to complete additional issues within a month thereafter and direction was also given to trial Court to conclude the evidence of petitioner-plaintiffs within six month. However, petitioner- plaintiffs could not conclude the evidence within the stipulated period of six months and hence their evidence was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- Civil Revision No.4130 of 2009(O&M) -2- plaintiffs that they have to examine only two witnesses, namely, Smt.Shakuntla Bharti, M.C. and Sanjay Kumar, Clerk of PSEB. It has been contended that their summons were issued by the Court and however they did not appear despite service. Thereafter their presence was ordered to be secured by way of bailable warrants and despite that they did not appear. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity for examination of these two witnesses at the responsibility of the petitioner-plaintiffs be granted. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-plaintiffs to examine aforementioned two witnesses at their own responsibility subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as cost, to be deposited with Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Patiala. However, it is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted by learned trial Court to petitioner-plaintiffs for this purpose and it will be their responsibility to bring the witnesses of their own. 17.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge