Civil Revision No. 3351 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3351 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.5.2010 R.K.Bansal ....Petitioner Versus Kuljit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Jag Nahar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner herein has a grievance that the impugned order directing closure of his evidence is harsh in character. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to aver that there is any factual inaccuracy in the course of the impugned order. He, in a fair manner, states that the defendant-petitioner did get as many as four opportunities to conclude his evidence. It is, thus, evident that the defendant-petitioner did get adequate opportunities to adduce evidence. A plea, for vacation of tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity, deserves priority handling. The number of opportunities granted was adequate. In view of the above noticed position, the validity of the impugned order cannot be faulted on any valid count. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE