Civil Revision No. 7016 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7016 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 16.11.2011 Rashpal Singh .... Petitioner Versus Swaran Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? Present: Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Rashpal Singh, one of the plaintiffs, has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division),Nakodar (Annexure-P4) whereby the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed by court order. Civil Revision No. 7016 of 2011 --2-- Rashpal Singh, plaintiff and two others namely Jaspal Singh and Satnam Singh, had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.13,19,200/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.9,70,000/- is the principal amount and a sum of Rs.3,49,200/- is the interest calculated thereon. On 10.09.2011, when the impugned order was passed, three witnesses of the plaintiffs came present and were examined. No other witness of the plaintiffs was present. Adjournment was sought but for the reason that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the plaintiffs including the last opportunity, the plaintiffs were found not to deserve further opportunity and the evidence was consequently closed. I have heard Shri Namit Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that summons had been issued to concerned clerk from State Bank of India, Shahkot, District Jalandhar alongwith record for 10.09.2011. According to him, the summons were offered to the witness, but he had raised the objection about the account number being not complete. In these circumstances, the process server returned the summons as not served and without considering this aspect, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar has closed the evidence of the plaintiffs. The witness sought to be examined is an employee of the bank for whom the court had issued notice. In the face of this Civil Revision No. 7016 of 2011 --3-- circumstance, the court should have asked the plaintiffs to furnish the complete account number, the record of which was to be summoned through the concerned clerk. Instead of adopting this course, learned trial court did not even notice the reason with learned counsel for the plaintiff for seeking adjournment. The order closing the evidence of the plaintiffs, is therefore, mechanical in passing of which, mind does not appear to have been applied. In these circumstances, the interest of justice requires one more opportunity to be given to the plaintiff-petitioner to examine the said witness, who alone is left to be examined by him. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 10.09.2011 is set aside, directing learned trial court to give one effective opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to examine the said witness for which the correct account number would be given by him for issuing ordinary as well as dasti process. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 16.11.2011 JUDGE dinesh