Civil Revision No. 6360 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6360 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 18th, 2011 Hardial Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Kirpal Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. By way of this revision petition, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendants have prayed for setting aside the order dated 23.9.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, vide which the evidence of the defendants has been closed by order of the court. Kirpal Kaur and her son Paramjit Singh Khera had brought a suit for joint possession to the extent of 2/3rd share in land measuring 54 kanals 5 marlas properly detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of village Odher, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. On 23.9.2011, it was last opportunity for the defendants to Civil Revision No. 6360 of 2011 2 .. lead their evidence. Despite that, no evidence of the defendants was present. The defendants moved an application seeking adjournment for their evidence, but learned trial court could not be persuaded for that. Noticing that the case is pending since 8.10.2010 for evidence of the defendants and that they have already availed nine opportunities, including three last opportunities, the evidence of the defendants was closed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the defendants have not availed nine clear opportunities to lead their evidence as is mentioned by learned trial court in the impugned order. According to him, the evidence of the plaintiffs was over on 28.9.2011 and the case came up for evidence of the defendants on 1.11.2010. According to him, one witness of the defendants was present and only his examination in chief was recorded and his cross examination was deferred on the request of learned counsel for the plaintiffs. According to him, on 26.10.2010, no evidence of the defendant was present and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 17.12.2010. He has submitted that on 17.12.2010 and 2.2.2011, the Presiding Officer of the court had already relinquished the charge and so the case was adjourned to 11.4.2011. According to him, the case was taken up on 5.4.2011 Civil Revision No. 6360 of 2011 3 .. because the court to whom this case was transferred, was to be on leave on that date. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 12.5.2011. He has further submitted that on 26.7.2011 also, the Presiding Officer of the court was on leave and therefore, the case was to be adjourned. He has submitted that in these circumstances, neither nine opportunities have been availed by the defendants to produce their evidence nor three last opportunities have been availed by them. He has submitted that before closing the evidence, the court should have granted one opportunity subject to payment of costs and should not have closed evidence in this manner. I have gone through the order sheet of the file extracted by the petitioners in the revision petition. I am of the opinion that learned trial court was not justified in closing the evidence without giving an opportunity subject to payment of costs. In these circumstances, I find the petitioners to be entitled to one more opportunity. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed directing the trial court to grant one clear opportunity to the petitioners to produce their evidence and to give dasti process, if required, for any witness sought to be summoned, subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 18th, 2011 som