Civil Revision No. 7710 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7710 of 2011 Date of decision. 14.12.2011 M/s Ram Sarup and Sons Commission Agents and another .... Petitioners Versus Daljeet Singh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been brought by the plaintiffs against the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nabha, vide which the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed by order of the court. The petitioners had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.4,25,720/- against Daljeet Singh, respondent. The case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs for 19.10.2011. When no evidence of the plaintiffs was brought on that date, learned trial court noticed the fact that plaintiffs had availed numerous opportunities including last one and Civil Revision No. 7710 of 2011 --2-- the case was quite old one. No justification was, therefore, found for further adjournment of the case for evidence of the plaintiffs. Hence, the evidence was closed by order of the court. I have heard Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the witnesses had already been put in the witness box as PW-1 to PW-3 and their examination in chief stood already recorded by way of affidavits. According to him, while cross-examination of PW-2 was complete, cross- examination of PW3 had been partly recorded and cross-examination of PW-1 was completely remaining. He has submitted that the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 would not be read in evidence for want of opportunity to the other party to cross-examine them. He has submitted that the suit would fail in that event without being decided on merits. He has submitted that the witnesses could not come on the date fixed and the request made on behalf of the plaintiffs for adjournment was declined. Learned trial court has not noticed the vital facts required for taking a decision in the matter in the impugned order. Learned trial court was required to notice the facts about the date on which issues were framed and the number of opportunities already availed by the plaintiffs for their evidence. It has not been done by learned trial court. Even the reason for not bringing the evidence for which adjournment was requested is not even noticed. Civil Revision No. 7710 of 2011 --3-- It is pertinent to mention in this case after the closing of the evidence by learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed an application under section 151 CPC for re-calling the order dated 19.10.2011. They have mentioned their reasons in the said application for not bringing evidnce on 19.10.2011, but the said application was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The evidence of a party is not to be closed in all circumstances if the said party has failed to bring the evidence despite a number of opportunities including the last one. Every request of adjournment has to be weighed on the merits of the reasons given to support the same. Nothing has been done in this case. When two witnesses have already been partly examined, it can be presumed that their cross-examination could not have been conducted by the other side. Therefore, opportunity should have been granted to the plaintiffs to produce PW1 and PW-3, may be subject to payment of costs. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the interest of justice requires grant of one opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce PW-1 and PW-3 for recording of their cross-examination. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to them to produce PW-1 and PW-3 for their cross- examination. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 14.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh