Civil Revision No.501 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.501 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2011 Harpal Singh .....Petitioner v. Daljit Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Hitesh Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 6.12.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangrur, vide which evidence of petitioner-defendant no.1 has been closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant no.1 that he is an old person and that he be given only one opportunity to produce his evidence at his own responsibility subject to any condition/cost that may deem to be imposed by this Court. Admittedly, the suit pertains to the year 2004. Suit was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff for specific performance by way of agreement to sell, allegedly executed in his favour by the daughter of petitioner-defendant no.1, i.e., respondent -defendant no.2, as his attorney. However, petitioner has taken the plea that respondent-plaintiff, who is nephew of the petitioner, had connived with his daughter, It is further contended that evidence could not be adduced as Lawyer of petitioner-defendant no.1 did not inform him about the progress of the case and hence, he changed the Lawyer to contest the suit. Perusal of the file shows that after availing four opportunities Civil Revision No.501 of 2011 (O&M) -2- for evidence, an application was filed by petitioner-defendant for admission and denial of the statement given by respondent-defendant no.2 in some other suit and after admission of the said statement by respondent-defendant no.2, case was again fixed for his evidence. The impugned order was passed when he could not conclude the evidence even after taking 2-3 opportunities. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. However, in the interest of justice, learned trial Court is directed to grant one final opportunity to petitioner-defendant no.1 to conclude his evidence at his own responsibility subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to respondent-plaintiff. It is made clear that petitioner-defendant no.1 would lead evidence at his own responsibility and would not seek any further adjournment. It is also made clear that payment of cost shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 24.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge