IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 19938-39-CII of 2009 & CR No. 4810 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.8.2009 Smt. Anti Devi and others ....Petitioners. Versus Bhulla Ram and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. Nos. 19938-39-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 4810 of 2009 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby evidence of the defendant-petitioners has been closed by the order of the Court. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to lead their entire evidence and the respondent-plaintiffs can be compensated by way of costs. He further submits that the petitioners will conclude their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility on the date to be fixed by the trial court. C.R. No. 4810 of 2009 -2- Ordinarily, I would have issued notice of motion to the respondents but as the issuance of notice would prolong the case and entail unnecessary expenses to them, the present petition is being disposed of without resorting to that course. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the petitioners deserve to be granted one opportunity to conclude their entire evidence. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall be granted one opportunity to lead their entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial court at their own risk and responsibility and subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent-plaintiffs as costs. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioners fail to conclude their entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial court or to pay the costs, as stipulated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. August 25, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE