C.R. No. 2583 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2583 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 3, 2009 Kailash Nath …..Petitioner Vs. Smt.Amar Kaur …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Rajan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated January 20, 2009 by virtue of which the request of the plaintiff- petitioner for an adjournment to enable him to produce the plaintiff witnesses PW1 and PW2 for cross-examination has been declined and the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by order C.R. No. 2583 of 2009 [2] on the ground that the petitioner has, despite number of opportunities, failed to produce the evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on February 6, 2008, PW1 had tendered his evidence but his cross-examination was deferred to March 14, 2008. On March 14, 2008, though PW1 was present for cross-examination but his cross-examination was deferred to May 7, 2008. PW1 has not been cross-examined till date. So far as PW2 is concerned, it is contended that on May 17, 2008, he has tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief. The case was adjourned for his cross- examination for October 24, 2008. On October 24, 2008 as PW1 was not available, the case was adjourned to December 16, 2008. It has been argued that on account of diabetic condition of PW1, he had to go out of station on December 14, 2006 as such he was not available on December 16, 2008 when the case was adjourned to January 20, 2009, for cross-examination. On January 20, 2009, the son of PW2 was not well as such a request was made to the Court for adjournment which has been declined vide impugned order. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the various interim orders, it is apparent that the plaintiff- petitioner has not been careful and vigilant enough to produce his evidence. It seems that he has been taking the various dates of hearing casually. Since the affidavit of PW1 and PW2 in examination-in-chief are already existing on the record, on account of they having not been cross-examined, their statements will be not available to the Court for adjudication of the matter. The circumstances C.R. No. 2583 of 2009 [3] of the present case warrant that the plaintiff may be permitted to produce his evidence subject to payment of costs, as he has been able to delay the proceedings on unreasonable grounds. The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated January 20, 2009 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that plaintiff- petitioner will be given two opportunities to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility within a period of two months after the next date of hearing before the trial Court subject to payment of costs of Rs.4000/-. The petitioner will produce his witnesses on next date of hearing and will tender the costs of Rs.4000/-. The trial Court will give total two opportunities to the plaintiff to produce his entire evidence within a period of two months. In case the evidence is not completed within the period granted to the plaintiff- petitioner or the costs are not paid, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. September 3, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE