CR No. 8072 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8072 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.12.2011 Amar Iqbal Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus State Bank of India and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this revision petition filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order 17.9.2011 passed by the trial court whereby their evidence has been closed by order of the Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs-petitioners could not produce the evidence due to certain unavoidable circumstances and in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted to them to lead their entire evidence and the defendants-respondents can be compensated by way of costs. He further submitted that the petitioners will conclude their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility on the date to be fixed by the trial court. 3. Ordinarily, I would have issued notice of motion to the CR No. 8072 of 2011 -2- respondents which would prolong the case and entail unnecessary expenses to them. Therefore, the present petition is being disposed of without issuing notice of motion to the respondents. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the petitioners deserve to be granted one opportunity to conclude their entire evidence. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall be granted one opportunity to lead their entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial court at their own risk and responsibility and subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- to the defendants-respondents as costs. 5. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioners fail to conclude their entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial court or to pay the costs, as stipulated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. It is further made clear that in case the defendants have any substantive grievance against this order, they may approach this Court. December 23, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE