Civl Revision No. 3892 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civl Revision No. 3892 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.8.2011 Gurpartap Singh and Another ... Petitioners Versus Pritam Singh alias Pritam Masih ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed praying that order dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure P1), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order be set aside. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that on that day, no witness of the plaintiffs was present and request was made for adjournment which was declined on the ground that the plaintiffs have already availed ten opportunities including four last opportunities. Thus, the trial Court closed the plaintiffs' evidence by order and adjourned the case for evidence of the defendant. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement to say that till Civl Revision No. 3892 of 2011 2 today no evidence of the defence has been recorded. Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the petitioners intend to examine only three witnesses, namely Sanjiv Kumar, Akash Masih as Draftsman and one other witness. He further submits that on 5.2.2011 the case was fixed for recording cross-examination of PW.2 Sanjiv Kumar and PW.3 Akash Masih. He further submits that the petitioners will examine all the witnesses, at their own risk and responsibility, therefore, one effective opportunity be afforded. He further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to compensate the defendant for the delay caused by payment of costs. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure P1) is set aside. The trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioners to produce their witnesses, namely Sanjiv Kumar and Akash Masih for their cross-examination and to examine one other witness, at their own risk and responsibility. This prayer of the petitioners has been accepted taking into consideration the balance of equities and fair play. However, the defendant ought to be compensated by way of costs. Hence, the petitioners are saddled with the cost of Rs.5,000, which shall be deposited in the trial Court to be paid to the respondent/defendant. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 30, 2011 “DK”