Cr no.6095 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6095 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 17.12.2009 **** Harkesh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Ram Kumar and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). As per the office report, respondents No.10,11,12,15 and 19 have been duly served and/or have refused to accept notice and are, thus, deemed to have been served. However, no one has put in appearance on their behalf. The remaining respondents were not found residing at the given addresses. (2). The petitioner-plaintiffs are aggrieved at the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby, after granting one opportunity, their evidence has been closed. (3). I am of the considered view that having regard to the nature of the issue involved, there is no necessity to serve the remaining respondents, moreso, when those who have been duly served, have also not come forward to contest this revision petition. In my opinion, there was no legal Cr no.6095 of 2009.doc - 2 - necessity for the Civil Court, Panipat to close the petitioner’s evidence so hurriedly. (4). The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed in the interest of justice and the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 is hereby set aside. The Civil Court, Panipat is directed to grant at least two more opportunities to the petitioner-plaintiffs to lead evidence at their own responsibilities. (5). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 17.12.2009 vishal shonkar