C.R.No.2451 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2451 of 2009 Date of Order: 20.5.2009 Nisha and another .....Petitioners Versus Punjab National Bank Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for respondent-Bank. JASWANT SINGH, J Present revision petition has been filed by the legal heirs of Bijender Kumar-defendant No.3, who was a guarantor for a loan taken by defendants No.1 & 2 from the respondent-plaintiff/Bank. Petitioners have prayed for setting aside order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Yamuna Nagar whereby their prayer for recalling Bank witnesses was declined. Briefly the facts are that defendant M/s Chawla Traders and Rupesh Kumar Chawla-proprietor had raised a loan from the plaintiff-Bank for which the deceased Bijender Kumar-defendant No.3, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, was a guarantor. As the loan was not repaid, respondent-plaintiff/Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,73,604/-. During the pendency of the suit, Bijender Singh-defendant C.R.No.2451 of 2009 #2# No.3 died and the petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs. It is stated that the evidence of the plaintiff-Bank was closed on 5.4.2008. It is not disputed that the petitioners (widow & minor son)- legal heirs of defendant No.3 had availed four effective opportunities to adduce their evidence and during that period, no witness was examined and ultimately their evidence was closed vide order dated 29.1.2009 passed by the learned trial Court. It is also not disputed that the said order was never challenged. It is after the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC dated 13.3.2009 was moved by the petitioner-defendant No.3 for recalling of the witnesses. Said application was contested by the respondent-plaintiff by filing a reply. After hearing the application, the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition. It is submitted that the respondent-plaintiff/Bank, during its evidence in affirmative, knowingly did not exhibit various documents on file including loan application, search report, NFC and legal notice etc as those documents are sufficient to defeat the suit. It is further submitted that the petitioners-defendants could not cross examine the plaintiff qua the said documents as these were not exhibited by the plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the defendants has been closed vide order dated 28.1.2009 and the defendants could not exhibit those documents as these were not in their possession. Learned counsel has urged that legally admissible evidence qua these aforesaid documents is absolutely necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties and, therefore, prays for two effective opportunities to lead the entire evidence within three months qua the C.R.No.2451 of 2009 #3# aforesaid documents. It is also urged that defendants No.1 & 2-defaulters are taking no interest in discharging their liabilities and it is the poor petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the guarantor, are being put to unnecessarily harassment. It is further urged that the petitioners-legal heirs were not in a state of shock due to the demise of Bijender Singh-defendant No.3 and, therefore, could not effectively defend their cause. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, keeping in view the circumstances of the petitioners and interest of justice, very graciously submits that he has no objection if besides the impugned order dated 8.4.2009, even the order dated 29.1.2009 is also set aside and two opportunities are granted to the petitioners to lead their entire evidence. In view of the agreed stand of the parties, orders dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P.1) and 29.1.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Yamuna Nagar are set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioners-legal heirs of defendant No.3 to lead their entire evidence within four months on two dates to be fixed by it. Allowed in the above terms. May 20, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE