C.R. No. 894 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 894 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.2.2011 Ramesh Kumar Arora ......Petitioner Versus DLF Limited .......Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Vide the impugned order, the evidence of the petitioner- defendant was closed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff closed its evidence on 10.11.2010 and the case was adjourned for defendant's evidence to 1.12.2010. Thereafter, only short dates were granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. Now the petitioner will conclude his evidence on one date at his own risk and responsibility. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the interim orders, reproduced in the revision petition, reveal that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed vide order dated C.R. No. 894 of 2011 (O&M) 2 10.11.2010. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 1.12.2010 for defendant's evidence. On 1.12.2010, the case was adjourned to 6.12.2010 for defendant's evidence and then to 9.12.2010 and then to 17.12.2010 and then to 4.1.2011, when the impugned order was passed. Thus, the petitioner- defendant was not given sufficient time to lead his evidence as the case was adjourned from time to time for petitioner's evidence by giving short dates. In case the petitioner is allowed to lead his evidence, the dispute between the parties will be disposed of on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice to allow one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Now the case is fixed before the trial Court on 9.2.2011. On the said date the trial Court shall adjourn the case for defendant's evidence. It is clarified that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. (SABINA) JUDGE February 8, 2011 Anand