Civil Revision No. 2016 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2016 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.4.2010 Amarjit Singh and another ..... Petitioners vs Jangir Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G. N. Malik, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs was closed by order of the court. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the petitioners against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 7.6.2007 and after filing of written statements, the issues were framed on 19.7.2007. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 15.1.2008 but the file was taken up on 11.1.2008 on which date the case was adjourned to 16.7.2008. On the date fixed i.e. on 16.7.2008 the case was adjourned to 3.12.2008 and thereafter to 21.4.2009. On 21.4.2009, the petitioners examined one witness and the case was adjourned to 10.10.2009. On the next two dates also, the petitioners could not examine the witnesses for the reasons beyond their control. On 25.2.2010, the evidence of the petitioners was closed. It was further submitted that the petitioners are not to gain anything in delaying the proceedings in the suit filed by them rather it will damage their interest. He prayed that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioners will complete their entire evidence on the next date i.e. on 12.4.2010. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that aim of the petitioners is only to delay the proceedings. He submitted that the order of the court below is perfectly right as number of opportunities had been granted to the petitioners to adduce evidence. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. Civil Revision No. 2016 of 2010 (2) Though there is some lapse on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs for concluding their evidence but still considering the fact that they were not to gain anything in that process and further that the suit has not been delayed too much on that account, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve to be granted one opportunity to conclude their evidence at their own responsibility. In view of the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 25.2.2010, closing the evidence of the petitioners, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to them for completing their evidence on the date already fixed by it. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the respondents. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners in case they fail to complete their entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 6.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge