IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5402 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 18, 2009 Murti Devi ...Petitioner Versus Satbir Sharma ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula on 25.8.2009, while closing the evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner, has been challenged by her in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While passing the impugned order, learned trial Court observed that no evidence of the plaintiff was present and the summons of PW Prem Nath have been received back unserved. The plaintiff had already availed of eight effective opportunities, including a couple of last opportunities, for her evidence but despite the same, she was not able to conclude the recording of her evidence. Moreover, the case was listed at serial No.32 in the list of old cases and, therefore, there was no justification to grant further opportunity to the plaintiff to examine her remaining evidence. Civil Revision No. 5402 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner states that the petitioner has already examined her entire evidence, except one Prem Nath. Initially the summons were issued for securing the presence of Prem Nath before the Court, which were received back unserved. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in not being able to examine Prem Nath as PW. In the event of Prem Nath's not appearing, the learned trial Court should have taken some coercive measures for securing his presence. Therefore, one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to examine Prem Nath and then to conclude her evidence. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Prem Nath is a private witness. Without going into the merits of the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner but keeping in view the interest of justice, the present revision is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff for examining Prem Nath as her witness. It would be the personal responsibility of the plaintiff to make Prem Nath available before the learned trial Court. This order would, however, be subject to payment of Rs.4,000/- as costs, which, on payment, shall be disbursed to the defendant-respondent. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 18, 2009 JUDGE satish