Parveen Sharma vs Rajiv Kundra and another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Parveen Sharma has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 26.03.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula thereby closing evidence of defendant-petitioner by Court order. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the defendant-petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the defendant-petitioner was granted five opportunities in all for his evidence. Counsel for the petitioner states that only three opportunities were granted to the petitioner for his evidence. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the defendant-petitioner is granted another opportunity to lead his remaining evidence. For the resultant small delay, plaintiffs can be compensated by way of cost.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents-plaintiffs so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents-plaintiffs of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. Trial Court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to defendant-petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost precedent.