Civil Revision No. 7948 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7948 of 2011 Date of decision. 22.12.2011 Sadhu Ram .... Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar and others ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Sadhu Ram, defendant no.4 is in revision before me challenging the order dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narwana, vide which the evidence of the defendants has been closed by order of the court. Suresh and Wazir Singh, the sons of Sadhu Ram, petitioner have brought a suit against Sadhu Ram and others for declaration to the effect that the release deed no. 2907 dated 20.09.2007 is illegal, null and void, a result of fraud and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. They have also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the defendants had been leading their evidence. On Civil Revision No. 7948 of 2011 --2-- 22.10.2011 two witnesses of the defendants were present and examined. As no other witness of the defendants was present and as the defendants had already availed a number of effective opportunities including last opportunity, the evidence of the defendants was closed by order of the court on 22.10.2011, finding no ground to have been made out for further adjournment of the case for evidence of the defendants. I have heard Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. I proceed to decide this revision petition without giving notice to the other party because that would save the other party from unnecessary loss of time and money in coming to this court. However, the respondents may file an application for reviewing this decision if they felt aggrieved thereby. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sadhu Ram, petitioner himself has to appear in the witness box in support of his case. He has submitted that he was not able to appear on 22.10.2011 and learned trial court did not accept the prayer for further adjournment and closed the evidence of the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in a parallel suit between the same parties the order dated 22.10.2011 closing the evidence of the defendants was challenged by Sadhu Ram and the revision petition brought by Sadhu Ram has been allowed on 01.12.2011 by this court. A copy of the said order is placed on the file as Annexure P-5. Civil Revision No. 7948 of 2011 --3-- There may be various reasons for a party not to be able to bring its evidence on a given day even inspite of the fact that it was last opportunity to him to produce the evidence. If a number of opportunities have already been given to that party including the last opportunity, the court is not to act in a mechanical way in closing the evidence. Rather in order to do justice to the parties, it has to consider the reasons given for non-production of the evidence and then take a decision about allowing further opportunity for evidence or not and if yes, then on what terms. Deciding a suit on merits after taking evidence of both the parties is a decision of the suit and deciding a suit by closing the evidence of the parties midway on their failure to bring the evidence within reasonable time is also a decision of the suit. But there is lot of difference between two. While the first decision is to be preferred, the second decision is not contemplated by the fair judicial system. A party to a suit is the most material witness in a suit. If the party fails to appear in the witness box in support of his own cause, his case would invite adverse inferences. There may be circumstances showing gross and contumacious disrespect on the part of a party to the authority of the court in not appearing in the witness box and seeking dates. In that event, the court would be justified in closing the evidence. However, in the case in hand, no inference that defendant no.4 was keeping away from the witness box in contumacious disregard of the orders of the court could be drawn. For the delay caused by him in Civil Revision No. 7948 of 2011 --4-- appearing in the witness box, he can be burdened with costs, which would compensate the other party for the loss of time caused to it thereby . Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the interest of justice requires grant of one opportunity to the petitioner to himself appear in the witness box in support of his case. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to himself appear in the witness box in support of his case. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 22.12.2011 dinesh