IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 1261 of 2008. Date of Decision: 15th May, 2008. Ranjit Singh ..Petitioner through Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate Versus Gurmeet Singh & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate with Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 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 30th January, 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla whereby evidence of the petitioner – defendant No. 1 has been closed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is true that the petitioner-defendant No. 1 has already availed seven effective opportunities and has yet not led his entire evidence. However, I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to him. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 30th January, 2008 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at his own responsibility. The aforestated opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, out of which a sum of Rs.1500/- shall be paid to respondent No. 3 and remaining to respondents No. 1 and 2 – plaintiffs. Disposed of. May 15, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE