Civil Revision No. 886 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 886 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.2.2010 Alok Bricks Company ..... Petitioner vs Om Parkash and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed by order of the court. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for mandatory injunction filed by respondent no. 1/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 12.8.2006. The petitioner/defendant had put in appearance on 17.11.2006. The plaintiff closed his evidence on 29.10.2009 after availing six opportunities. On 29.10.2009, the case was adjourned to 22.12.2009 for defendant's evidence. As no DW was present, the case was adjourned to 8.1.2010, on which date also the case was adjourned to 20.1.2010. However, learned counsel for the petitioner wrongly noted the date as 30.1.2010 and the same was informed to the petitioner. He has produced on record photo copies of the diary, Annexures P-1 to P-3 showing the cases listed for 8.1.2010, 20.1.2010 and 30.1.2010. He has also produced on record, photo copy of brief of the present case as Annexure P- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete its entire evidence on the next date. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence but not availed of by the petitioner. The object is only to delay the proceedings. Civil Revision No. 886 of 2010 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. A perusal of the Annexures P-1 to P-4 shows that counsel for the petitioner wrongly noted the date as 30.1.2010 instead of 20.1.2010. There is no cutting on the brief as well as in the diary maintained by the Advocate which shows that it is not intentional act. The case is stated to be fixed before the court below on 18.2.2010. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he will complete his entire evidence on the next date of hearing itself. In view of the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 20.1.2010, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date already fixed by it. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the respondent/plaintiff. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete the entire evidence on the date already fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. 16.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge