Civil Revision No. 1645 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1645 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.4.2010 Bakhtawar Singh ..... Petitioner vs Smt. Swaran Kaur and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. V. K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Mr. S. K. Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order of the court. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell against the respondents/ defendants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 1.2.2006 and after completion of the pleadings, the issues were framed on 25.4.2008. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff started. The petitioner examined all the private witnesses but could not examine the witnesses who are officials of the improvement trust and Registrar's office. On the date when the impugned order closing the evidence was passed, the petitioner examined two witnesses but was unable to examine the official witnesses as they were not present despite service. It was submitted that as the remaining witnesses are official, he is not in a position to produce them without the process of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that in case effective opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date fixed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that aim of the petitioner is only to delay the proceedings and harass the respondents. The order of the learned court below closing the evidence of the petitioner by order is perfectly right as numerous opportunities were availed of by the petitioner to adduce evidence. Civil Revision No. 1645 of 2010 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner had led substantial evidence on three dates and had also served the official witness who is from Improvement Trust, Amritsar. It is not the fault of the petitioner that the witness did not appear despite service. Another official witness is from Registrar's office. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer as it was on account of circumstances beyond his control that he could not produce the said officials witness though the same were served by him. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 14.1.2010, the learned court below is directed to grant opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date to be fixed by it. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get summons issued for the official witness. In case they do not appear despite service, the court would take all effective steps as permissible under the law. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of prescribed fee. 29.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge