C.R. No.7779 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7779 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.11.2010. Tulsi Ram .....Petitioner Versus Balwant Singh and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant-Tulsi Ram has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 29.10.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi thereby closing evidence of the defendant-petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the defendant-petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the impugned order as well as other zimini orders of the trial Court reproduced in the revision petition reveals that the petitioner was granted 5 effective opportunities for his evidence by the trial Court. Keeping in view the same and all other circumstances including C.R. No.7779 of 2010 -2- absence of counsel for defendant in the trial Court on two dates of hearing, when the defendant had to seek adjournments, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if aforesaid prayer made by counsel for the defendant-petitioner is allowed. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court to summon evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness despite service or on any other ground whatsoever. 30.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE