Civil Revision No.836 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.836 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 Surinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Joga Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3365-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.3664-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record zimni orders passed by learned trial Court from 20.3.2007 to 3.1.2011. The same are taken on record subject to al just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.836 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.1.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balachaur (Nawanshahr), vide which evidence of petitioner-respondent no.1 has been closed by order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Civil Revision No.836 of 2011(O&M) -2- It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that evidence of respondent no.1 on application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree passed against him and in favour of present petitioner was closed on 30.9.2010, as is clear from the zimni order of that date passed by learned trial Court. It is further contended that thereafter some short dates were given by learned trial Court to present petitioner as well as to respondent no.2 to adduce evidence. It has also been contended that vide order dated 11.10.2010, case was fixed for evidence of respondent no.2 only and thereafter as well it was fixed for evidence of respondent no.2. It is further contended that however, vide impugned order evidence of petitioner-respondent no.1 has been closed, whereas evidence of respondent no.2 has not been closed so far. It is further contended that only one opportunity may be granted to petitioner- respondent no.1 to adduce evidence at his own responsibility. Hence, in view of these facts, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent no.1. Impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-respondent no.1 to adduce evidence at his own responsibility subject to payment of Rs.1,000/-, as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 7.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge