CR No.5649 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5649 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.12.2010 **** Satish Chaudhary & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. Rajesh Chadha . . . . . Respondent **** 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. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondent ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This revision petition has been preferred by the defendants whose defence evidence has been closed down by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar vide the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure P9). (2). The petitioners’ case is that they had deposited the Diet Money as well as the process fee in order to summon the official witnesses, namely, the Clerks from the HDFC Bank, Citi Bank, and the State Bank of India as well as two other official witnesses whose evidence is stated to be necessary in order CR No.5649 of 2010.doc - 2 – to arrive at a just conclusion. On this premise, it is maintained that there was no fault on the part of the petitioners and their evidence ought not to have been closed. (3). Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff fairly states that he has no objection if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner-defendants to lead their respective evidence. (4). In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure P9) passed by the learned trial Court is set aside with a direction to give one more effective opportunity to the petitioner/defendants to produce the above-stated official witnesses through dasti process, if so required and at their own risk and responsibility. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 21.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE