Civil Revision No. 8 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 8 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2009 Inder Singh ..... Petitioner vs Ram Phool and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jagat Singh,Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the learned Court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 27.2.2007 and for the first time the case was adjourned for evidence of the petitioner-defendant on 15.3.2007, on which date no DW was present. However, on 3.4.2007, one DW was present and examined. On the next date i.e. 11.4.2007 also one DW was present and examined. Same was the position on the next date i.e. 30.4. 2007. However, on 18.5.2007, no DW was present. On 8.6.2007 and 15.10.2007, the case could not be taken up as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 5.3.2008, the next date of hearing, the petitioner was granted last opportunity for leading his evidence on 27.8.2008. Even on that date, one DW was present and examined. As other DWs were not present, the court finding that the sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner and on the date fixed it was the last opportunity, did not grant any further opportunity. Civil Revision No. 8 of 2009 (2) The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. The case is fixed for hearing before the court below on 10.2.2009. Considering the fact that on various dates of hearing, the petitioner had been examining the witnesses produced by him though he had not made serious efforts to complete his entire evidence as the DWs have been produced in the court in piece meal, however, still taking a lenient view, I find that it would be in the interest of justice in case the petitioner is granted one opportunity for completing his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility on the date already fixed i.e. 10.2.2009. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the respondents/plaintiffs. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.8.2008 is set aside. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of ususal charges. 3.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge