IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.541 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 28.1.2010 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dinesh Kumar ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.1951-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.541 of 2010 This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 2.4.2009 whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of the Court. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice and the case of the petitioner cannot be shut merely on the technicalities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff-respondent as the plaintiff-respondent can very well be compensated with costs. Moreover, since the date of passing of the impugned order, no further proceedings have taken place and the case is now fixed for 8.2.2010 for rebuttal and arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is a Corporation and sometimes the time is consumed in procuring the evidence of other employees in such like cases and therefore, the delay has been caused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. CR No.541 of 2010(O&M) -2- Though learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to substantiate his argument with regard to consuming of time in producing the evidence yet this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead its evidence at its own risk and responsibility. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead its evidence at its own risk and responsibility subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. Let the petitioner appear before the trial Court on the date fixed. If the petitioner wants to produce its evidence on the date fixed, it shall be allowed to do so by the trial Court subject to payment of costs as aforesaid. However, no further opportunity shall be granted. It is further made clear that the aforesaid costs shall be recovered by the petitioner-Corporation from the erring official, responsibility for which will be fixed and a compliance report will be submitted to this Court within two months from today. The present petition stands disposed of. January 28, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE