C.R. No.6193 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6193 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:24.09.2010. Sadhika Sugandh Limited ...Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar Jindal ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM No.24474-CII of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. C.R. No.6193 of 2010 (O&M) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur whereby application filed by the defendant/petitioner for recalling of order dated 10.06.2009, by which evidence of the defendant was closed, has been dismissed. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of `53,000. The case was fixed for 10.06.2009 for the evidence of the defendant. According to the petitioner, the defendant had reached the Court for the purpose of his evidence but by that time his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 10.08.2009. On the said date, the C.R. No.6193 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ****** matter could not be taken up as the Presiding Officer was on leave. It was then adjourned to 27.08.2009. Again the case could not be taken up on 27.08.2009 because the Presiding Officer was on leave and it was again adjourned to 11.09.2009. The defendant/petitioner prepared his affidavit for the purpose of his examination on that date, i.e. 11.09.2009, but the same could not be tendered and the case was adjourned to a longer date. In the meantime, an application for recalling of the order dated 10.06.2009 was filed which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for only one last opportunity, that too, the date which is now fixed before the Trial Court i.e. 28.09.2010, for the purpose of leading his entire evidence. As a matter of fact, he submits that he would only tender his affidavit in examination-in-chief and would make himself available for the purpose of cross-examination by the plaintiff. He further prays that the plaintiff may be compensated for the lapse on the part of the defendant, by imposing costs for granting one more opportunity. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, without issuing notice of this revision petition, the petitioner could be granted one more opportunity to lead his entire evidence on 28.09.2010 by imposing costs. Hence, this revision petition is allowed in limine and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead its entire evidence on the date already fixed before the Trial Court, i.e. 28.09.2010, subject to payment of costs of `5,000, which shall be paid by the petitioner by way of demand draft to be drawn in the name of the plaintiff. Copy dasti. September 24, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE