IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1990 of 2008. Date of Decision: 12th May, 2008. Chander Shekhar ....Petitioner through Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate Versus Krishan Kumar & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal whereby evidence of the petitioner who is respondent No. 1 in an Election Petition, has been closed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. As is apparent from the impugned order, the petitioner wanted to examine Yogesh Kumar, who is presently posted as City Magistrate, Panchkula. The said witness, however, did not turn up despite service and sent a fax message that he was busy in some municipal elections. It would, thus, be seen that no fault can be attributed to the petitioner due to non-appearance of the afore-stated witness. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.03.2008 is set aside. The petitioner shall be granted one more opportunity to summon the aforementioned witness and if the learned trial Court is satisfied that the said witness is deliberately not appearing, it will be at liberty to adopt coercive methods including bailable warrants to secure his presence. The petitioner, however, shall pay costs of Rs.2500/- to the respondent- election petitioner. Dasti. Disposed of. May 12, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE