IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6425/2011 Date of decision: 20.10.2011. Chander Parkash Shukla ....................Petitioner v. Kanwaljit Singh .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Sanjeev Gupta KKR,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Tenant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 5.10.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panchkula whereby his evidence has been closed by order. It is submitted that in the suit for possession by way of ejectment of the petitioner, the evidence of the petitioner had commenced w.e.f. 19.8.2011. On the first date of hearing i.e. 19.8.2011 due to the non-appearance of any DW the case was adjourned to 9.9.2011 by treating the same as last opportunity. It is stated that on 9.9.2011 the petitioner had changed his counsel and therefore, an adjournment was sought which was granted subject to payment of Rs.400/- as costs and the case was adjourned to 5.10.2011 for the evidence of the petitioner at his own responsibility by further treating it to be the last opportunity. It is further submitted that on 5.10.2011 one DW was examined and the evidence of the petitioner was closed by court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two official witnesses; i.e. one from the Bank and the other from the Postal Department; are required to be examined in order to establish that monthly payment of rentals have been made and no notice regarding termination of tenancy was served upon the petitioner, as pleaded in the written statement. It is further urged that though three opportunities have been granted however, the Court has not given sufficient time to summon the entire evidence of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner through I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 5.10.2011, however, keeping in view the nature of the dispute, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence at his own responsibility. This shall, however, be subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 5.10.2011 closing the evidence of the petitioner is set aside with further direction to the trial court to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the learned trial court subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs payable to respondent/plaintiff by way of demand draft. It is further clarified that payment of costs by way of Demand Draft is a condition precedent for affording one effective opportunity to the petitioner. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent/plaintiff to avoid unnecessary delay and expenditure. Moreover, the respondent is being compensated by way of payment of costs. However, still if the respondent is aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move an application for recalling this order. 20.10.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge