Civil Revision No. 6269 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6269 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 14.10.2011 Neelam .... Petitioner Versus Anuradha and others ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by Neelam, the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by order of the court. In a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share of the land of defendant no.2, the plaintiff was leading her evidence on 20.09.2011. One PW was present on that day and was cross-examined. As no other evidence of the plaintiff was present, learned counsel for the plaintiff requested for short adjournment on the ground of ill health of the plaintiff. Since the request was opposed, learned trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff because no medical certificate was produced to support the plea of illness of the plaintiff as also for the fact that six effective opportunities including two last Civil Revision No. 6269 of 2011 --2-- opportunities had been availed by the plaintiff. It is also noticed that on the previous date, learned counsel for the plaintiff had undertaken to conclude the evidence of the plaintiff on the next date of hearing and that the plaintiff had changed her counsel on that date. I have heard Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner alone is to be examined in this case. According to him, she is rather to be cross-examined only because her examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit has already been recorded. According to him, she was ill on that date and as medical certificate could not be produced, learned court took an adverse view against her and closed her evidence. As it is the plaintiff/petitioner alone, who has to be cross- examined to complete her evidence, one opportunity should have been granted for the purpose. As medical certificate does not prove in all circumstances that the person named therein is ill, absence of medical certificate does not prove otherwise. There was no reason for discarding the submission made by learned counsel for the plaintiff about her illness. In these circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 20.09.2011 is set aside, directing learned trial court to give one clear opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to present herself for cross-examination, subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 14.10.2011 JUDGE dinesh