Civil Revision No. 5722 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5722 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 4th, 2011 Kirpa Singh .... Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. K.B.Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This revision petition has been brought by Kirpa Singh, plaintiff, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dated 23.5.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14.12.1998 executed by the defendant in his favour in respect of land measuring 39 Kanals 16 Marlas. The plaintiff filed an application on 24.5.2006 for comparing the specimen thumb impression of the defendant with the thumb impression appearing in the name of the defendant on the agreement of sale. The said application was allowed by the trial court. The defendant was directed to be Civil Revision No. 5722 of 2011 2 .. brought to the court for giving his specimen thumb impressions. The defendant was brought to the court only on 23.2.2011 and after taking the sample thumb impressions of the defendant on 23.2.2011, the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiffs on 21.4.2011. On that day, the Presiding Officer of the court was to be on leave and the file was taken up earlier on 18.4.2011 and was adjourned to 23.5.2011. It is on 23.5.2011 that the cross- examination of PW3 was completed and a request was made for allowing an opportunity to examine the Finger Print Expert, but the opportunity was declined and the evidence was closed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri K.B.Raheja, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Copies of the orders passed in the civil suit by learned trial court, placed on record as Annexure P5, reveal that the application for comparison of specimen thumb impression of the defendant with the disputed thumb impression on the agreement of sale, was allowed vide order dated 24.5.2006. Although, many opportunities were given in the meanwhile, yet the defendant was produced for giving his specimen thumb impressions on 23.2.2011. The opportunities given in large number, in the meantime, cannot be said to have been given to the plaintiff to produce his evidence. It is after 23.2.2011 that the case was fixed for 21.4.2011 for remaining evidence of the plaintiff. On that day, the Presiding Civil Revision No. 5722 of 2011 3 .. Officer was to be on leave and taking up the case earlier, the same was adjourned to 23.5.2011 when the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The number of effective opportunities noticed by learned trial court as having been given to the petitioner is 20. This number is quite alarming. However, if one has to look to the order sheet of the case, it would appear that the adjournments were caused by the defendant, who did not appear for giving his specimen thumb impressions. After giving of specimen thumb impression, only one effective opportunity was given on which the plaintiff could not produce his evidence. Though there was no justification for non production of the Finger Print Expert on 23.5.2011, the same did not justify closing of the evidence. Inspite of the large number of opportunities given to the plaintiff to produce his evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner is entitled to one more effective opportunity to produce his evidence. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed directing the trial court to give one effective opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 4th, 2011 som