C.R. No.5047 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5047 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.08.2010 Standard Corporation India Ltd. .……Petitioner Versus Shobit Polyclinic Pvt. Ltd. ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 21.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala thereby closing plaintiff's evidence by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for its evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the plaintiff was granted six effective opportunities for its evidence and since the plaintiff failed to lead its evidence, the trial Court was left with no option, but to close the evidence of the plaintiff by Court order. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that on the preceding date of hearing i.e on 09.06.2010, counsel for the plaintiff had undertaken to close the evidence on the next date and had also stated that if it is not so concluded, it be treated as closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that C.R. No.5047 of 2010 -2- Rajesh Kumar, Deputy General Manager (Legal) of the plaintiff-company is to appear as witness and on 21.07.2010, he had to be at Chennai in connection with some urgent legal work of the plaintiff-company and in view thereof, application Annexure P-1 was moved in advance for adjourning the case to some other date. Keeping in view the aforesaid and keeping in view all the circumstances including the fact that the plaintiff would be non-suited without adjudication as its evidence has been closed and it would be a case of no evidence, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner for its evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the respondent so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the revision petition and also to save respondent from the expenses which it may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to it. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the plaintiff for its evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.7500/- as costs precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court to summon evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness despite service or on any other ground whatsoever. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 12.08.2010 A. Kaundal