C.R. No. 7095 of 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7095 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 13-01-2009 Krishna Devi ....Petitioner VERSUS Ram Rattan and others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present:- Mr. Rajat Rathi, Advocate for Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order and case has been fixed for the defendants' evidence. The petitioner's evidence was closed vide order dated 09.06.2008. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No.4287 of 2008 in this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 09.06.2008. This Court vide order dated 27.08.2008 allowed the aforesaid Civil Revision No.4287 of 2008 and granted one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude her entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. It is also relevant to mention that although the order of granting one more opportunity was subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, yet costs have not been paid. Vide order dated 12.09.2008, the Additional Civil Judge C.R. No. 7095 of 2008(O&M) -2- (Senior Division), Kaithal has also passed an order to the effect that the bailable warrant or warrant of arrest of the witness be got issued if required for evidence of plaintiff and fixed the case for 24.10.2008 for evidence of the petitioner. The plaintiff/petitioner has failed to show anything from the record that she was not granted the necessary help by way of process of the Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has neither summoned any witness nor has submitted any list of witnesses to the Court for summoning them for this date. The case was then adjourned to 27.11.2008. No evidence was present and the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel argued that the witnesses were not under the control of the petitioner and he had furnished diet money etc., for summoning them for 09.06.2008 through the process of the court and, therefore, he could not be held to be at fault. Moreover, the order dated 09.06.2008 was set aside vide order dated 27.08.2008 granting one more opportunity which means a specific and effective opportunity to conclude the evidence. Thus, the trial Court has misinterpreted the order passed by this Court and has wrongly passed the impugned order. The argument is without any merit. Evidence of the petitioner was closed by order dated 09.06.2008 which was set aside vide order dated 27.08.2008 and petitioner was granted one more opportunity. List of witnesses submitted by the petitioner to summon witnesses prior to this order was of no use. After the grant of opportunity, petitioner never sought the help of process of Court to summon the witnesses and in fact submitted no such list of witnesses,nor the petitioner paid the costs which C.R. No. 7095 of 2008(O&M) -3- was sine-qua non permitting her one more opportunity. It is also clear from the impugned order that no evidence was present on 18.09.2008, yet case was adjourned to 24.10.2008 and thereafter to 27.11.2008, on which date the impugned order was passed. In view of the above stated facts, no fault can be found with the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. Revision petition is dismissed. 13th January, 2009. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Monika Judge