C. R. No. 3173 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3173 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 13, 2010 Hansi Geeta Bhawan Trust, Hansi .... Petitioner Vs. Shri Santan Dharam Kanya Varisth Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Hansi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff Hansi Geeta Bhawan Trust, Hansi, through its Chairman Devender Kumar Garg, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. On 28.04.2010, one witness of the plaintiff was present. His examination-in-chief was recorded, but cross-examination of the said C. R. No. 3173 of 2010 2 witness was deferred to 17.05.2010, on request of counsel for defendant no.1 because advance copy of affidavit of examination-in-chief of the said witness had not been supplied to the opposite counsel. The trial court, while adjourning the case from 28.04.2010 to 17.05.2010 for cross- examination of the aforesaid witness, also ordered that no other witness of the plaintiff shall be allowed to be examined as it was last opportunity for plaintiff's evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff- petitioner had made application dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) in the trial court for granting another opportunity for plaintiff's evidence on the ground that plaintiff's Chairman Devender Kumar Garg, who is prime witness in the case, is seriously ill and therefore, could not appear in the Court on that day for evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was only third opportunity for plaintiff's evidence in the case, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application (Annexure P-1). Keeping in view the fact that it was only third opportunity for petitioner's evidence in the trial court and also the fact that the case already stands adjourned by the trial court to 17.05.2010 for cross-examination of PW-1, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff-petitioner is granted opportunity to lead other evidence also in the trial court on 17.05.2010 – the date already fixed there, subject to payment of cost. C. R. No. 3173 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions from the petitioner's Chairman Devender Kumar Garg that he would appear as witness on 17.05.2010 in the trial court with the help of some attendant. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents, so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the instant revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to them. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to permit the plaintiff-petitioner to lead its remaining evidence (in addition to cross-examination of PW-1) on 17.05.2010 i.e. the date already fixed in the trial court, at own responsibility of the petitioner-plaintiff, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. No other opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for its affirmative evidence by the trial court. May 13, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE