Civil Revision No. 328 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 328 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.1.2009 Tarlok Singh and another ..... Petitioners vs Baldev Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja,Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 9.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, whereby evidence of the petitioners was closed by order of the Court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the claim petition as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by respondent no. 1/ plaintiff against the petitioners and proforma respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the suit was filed by respondent no. 1/ plaintiff in the year 2005 but he closed his evidence on 30.4.2008. It was for the first time that the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioners on 16.7.2008 as first opportunity. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 29.8.2008 as second opportunity. On 29.8.2008, the petitioners/ defendants did not lead any evidence and the case was adjourned granting third and last opportunity. On 20.10.2008, statement of one DW was recorded and adjournment was sought which was granted subject to payment of costs and the case was adjourned to 9.12.2008. On 9.12.2008 also, the petitioners got examined 3 DWs and adjournment was sought for completion of rest of the evidence but the court closed their evidence by order. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioners Civil Revision No. 328 of 2009 (2) will complete their entire evidence on the date fixed. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners are borne out from the record. The case is fixed for hearing today. It is not matter of rule that whosoever challenges the order of closure of evidence before this court is granted one opportunity to lead evidence, but in the present case what is noticed is that the petitioners/defendants were taking effective steps to lead their evidence and even on the date the evidence was closed, 3 DWs were examined. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners to lead their entire evidence. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 9.12.2008 closing the evidence of the petitioners, the trial court is directed to grant opportunity to the petitioners for completing their entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial court. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs to respondent no. 1/plaintiff. The petitioners shall be at liberty to get dasti summons issued for any official witness. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners in case they fail to complete their entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 21.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge