Civil Revision No. 7388 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7388 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 01.12.2011 Sadhu Ram .... Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. K.S. Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Sadhu Ram, defendant no.4 has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narwana, vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed. The suit for declaration and joint possession alongwith the relief of permanent injunction has been brought by Suresh Kumar and Wazir Singh against their father Sadhu Ram and others. The said suit was pending for 22.10.2011 with learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narwana for evidence of the defendants. Two witnesses of the Civil Revision No. 7388 of 2011 --2-- defendants namely Balwan Singh and Gurmail Singh were present and were examined on that day. No other witness was present. Referring to the previous order vide which it was observed that the evidence of the defendants would be deemed to be closed if no evidence was brought on the next date, learned trial court has found the defendants to have availed ample number of opportunities including last opportunity. Therefore, no ground was found to adjourn the case for evidence of the defendants and consequently, the evidence of the defendants was closed by order of the court. I have heard Shri K.S. Banyana, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The courts are required to do justice and that justice does not only mean decision of the suit on the basis of the evidence coming on the record but also means justice to the parties in taking their evidence. A party may have very valid ground for seeking adjournment for bringing his evidence. The court while closing the evidence is required to notice the reason given by learned counsel for the party seeking adjournment for evidence and decide as to whether the said reason is valid for adjournment or not. The court should not adopt a mechanical method of proceeding with the trial under which if a party fails to bring evidence despite last opportunity, the evidence should be closed irrespective of the validity of the reason for not bringing the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only Sadhu Ram, petitioner is himself to appear as his own witness and he Civil Revision No. 7388 of 2011 --3-- could not appear in the court on the date when the impugned order was passed. A party to a suit is the most material witness of the case. If a party fails to appear in support of its case, adverse inference becomes available against its case. Opportunity could be given to defendant no.4 to appear as his own witness subject to payment of costs. Instead of granting another adjournment subject to payment of costs, which could have been heavy, learned trial court closed the evidence of the defendants. For the aforesaid reason, I find that learned trial court was not justified in closing the evidence of the defendants. The revision petition is consequently allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. Learned trial court is directed to give one effective opportunity to defendant no.4-petitioner to appear as his own witness. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 01.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh