C.R.No.3656 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3656 of 2007. Decided on August 25, 2009. Kamal Kapoor .. Petitioner VERSUS Madhavi Malhotra and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Anil Kapoor, respondent No.3, has been served. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3, Anil Kumar, as such, he is proceeded against ex parte. Said Anil Kapoor is the main contesting respondent. Anil Kapoor had filed a suit for separate possession of properties mentioned in the heading of the plaint claiming that he has got 1/4th share along with defendant Nos.1 to 3. He had also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating specific portion more than their share in the property which is the subject matter of the suit for . . . 1 C.R.No.3656 of 2007 partition. Vide impugned order dated 17.07.2007, after the plaintiff-respondent had closed his evidence, the defendant-petitioner has examined three witnesses. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the defendant-petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1400/- vide receipt No.2861 dated 10.01.2006, and one Sunita Mehta who was cited as a witness was summoned but notice was received back unserved. Thereafter, the cross-examination of the three witnesses produced was completed on 17.07.2007. Main grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that the other witnesses whose names were mentioned in the list of witnesses had not been summoned for the date fixed, as such, the trial Court has erred in closing evidence of the defendants solely on the ground that the matter was eight years old. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even defendant-petitioner has not been able to examine himself on account of impugned order. He seeks one opportunity to appear as his own witness. Since the contesting plaintiff-respondent has not put in appearance and he has been proceeded against ex parte, after considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not given sufficient reasons for closing the evidence on 17.07.2007, especially when the defendant had furnished the list of witnesses and deposited diet money and process . . . 2 C.R.No.3656 of 2007 fee for the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses. This revision petition is allowed. The order dated 17.07.2007, closing the evidence of the defendant is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the trial Court will give opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to produce himself as his own witness and examine the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses in accordance with law by giving two effective opportunities, subject to payment of costs of Rs.4,000/-, to the plaintiff-respondent. Costs will be paid on the next date of hearing or any other date fixed by the Court for the said purpose. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.09.2009, (as the counsel for the petitioner is not aware of the next date of hearing before the trial Court). (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 25, 2009. rka ` . . . 3