Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. On 5.5.2000 when this revision petition come for hearing following order was passed by the Court:- "This case was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the respondent on 22.12.1999. However, nobody appeared on 8.3.2000 and the case was adjourned to 4.5.2000. On 4.5.2000 again nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent and the case was adjourned for today. Today again nobody appears. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Order reserved. 2. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 10.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which he closed the evidence of the defendant and directed the matter to be listed for rebuttal and arguments. In the impugned order the learned Judge has noticed that number of opportunities were granted to the defendant to conclude his evidence including the last opportunity, but the defendant failed to conclude his evidence leaving the Court with no option but to pass the impugned order. 3. A bare reading of the order shows that the defendant has not been pursuing his case properly and has been ignoring the directions given by the Court. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 7,00,000/-, which is being contested by the defendant. The claim of the corporation is based upon the alleged shortage in fertilizers in its godown during 1995 to 1998 for which the Corporation holds the defendant, its employee as responsible. According to the defendant in the suit he is not responsible for the alleged shortage and he is only being made as a scapegoat. It is contended that the defendant was not able to produce the evidence because he was forced to go to Shimla for some office work and from where on 9.11.1999 he travelled by bus, which unfortunately broke down on the way and because of mechanical fault which occurred at kandhaghat he was not able to reach in time and could reach Amritsar at 3.00 P.M. when he contacted his counsel, it was told that his evidence was closed. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner prays that he be granted last opportunity to conclude his evidence. 4. Serious controversies have been raised on the merits of the claim and its is a case where in order to determine the matters in issue fully and finally the defendant can be granted final opportunity to conclude his evidence. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner prays that he be granted last opportunity to conclude his evidence. 4. Serious controversies have been raised on the merits of the claim and its is a case where in order to determine the matters in issue fully and finally the defendant can be granted final opportunity to conclude his evidence. The negligence on the part of the defendant can always be compensated by way of appropriate costs and further more the attempt of the Court normally should be to decide the matter on merits rather than to close the evidence of a party at this stage of the suit in the present manner unless the facts and circumstances of the case are compelling ones and the defecting party has been abusing the process of law. I am also of the considered view that the orders of such grave consequences like the impugned order should normally be preceded by orders of lesser gravity like imposition of costs with final opportunity etc. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Shanti Devi v. Nand Kishore and Ors., (1999-3)123 P.L.R. 427, and Mool Chand v. Presiding Officer, (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 514. 5. For the reasons afore-stated the impugned order dated 10.11.1999 is set aside. The petitioner defendant in the suit is granted the final opportunity to conclude his entire evidence at his risk and responsibility on the date now to be fixed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner would not be entitled to any further adjournment on any score whatsoever except for paucity of time with the Court. Production of the witnesses, even if summons are taken through the process of the Court would be at his risk and responsibility. The petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs, costs being conditional.