Civil Revision No. 3833 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3833 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: June 02, 2010 Pankaj Kumar and others ...... petitionerss Versus Balwinder Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This is a petition challenging the order closing the evidence of the petitioner-defendants primarily on the ground that as many as 18 opportunities were taken for leading evidence and on the previous date an undertaking was made by learned counsel that he would conclude his entire evidence on the next date viz. 15.04.2010. However, on 15.04.2010 counsel for the petitioners was not present nor were any witnesses present and that is why the evidence was closed. Learned counsel has argued that even though technically no fault can be found with the order of the learned trial Court yet the reason why evidence could not be led was that the counsel for the petitioners was unwell and that he had filed an affidavit as well as given a medical certificate in this regard. Further states that the matter is fixed for Civil Revision No. 3833 of 2010(O&M) 2 08.06.2010 for rebuttal evidence and in case the petitioners are allowed to lead their entire evidence on their own responsibility on the said date it would advance the cause of justice. Further states that the respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs can be compensated by way of costs. In view of the fact that there is some evidence to the effect that counsel for the petitioners had taken ill on the date in question, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioners are permitted to lead their entire evidence at their own responsibility subject to costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by two demand drafts of Rs. 2500/- each in favour of respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs. Petition is allowed in the above terms. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE June 02, 2010 sunita