C. R. No. 1502 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1502 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 08, 2010 Manjit Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Gurmej Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sarabjeet Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendant no.3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure P- 4), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, thereby closing evidence of the defendants by court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case was fixed for 26.05.2009 for the first time for evidence of defendants, but on that date, no evidence of defendants was present and the case was adjourned to 03.09.2009. On 03.09.2009, the case was adjourned to 25.11.2009, since the Presiding Officer had to go to Chandigarh to attend some training programme. On 25.11.2009, evidence of the defendants was present, but could not be recorded because the Presiding Officer was holding Juvenile Court. The case was adjourned to 08.02.2010, on which date defendants' evidence was closed by court order. It is contended that on 08.02.2010, the C. R. No. 1502 of 2010 2 defendants could not bring evidence on account of some death in the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on payment of cost. Keeping in view the fact that only two effective opportunities appear to have been granted to defendants for their evidence, I am inclined to accept the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. On 25.11.2009, evidence of the defendants was present, but could not be recorded as Presiding Officer was holding Juvenile Court. On 03.09.2009, the Presiding Officer had to go to Chandigarh. Thus, the defendants got effective opportunities on 26.05.2009 and 08.02.2010 only. Accordingly, in my opinion, ends of justice would be served, if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on payment of cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent no.1, so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save respondent no.1 of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the instant revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to him. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness inspite of service, or for any other reason whatsoever. March 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) C. R. No. 1502 of 2010 3 monika JUDGE