Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. This is defendants- revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 whereby evidence of the defendant-petitioners has been closed by order of the Court. 2. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that without any fault on their part, the trial Court has ordered the closure of their evidence as it is clearly established from Annexures P-1 to P-6 that only two witnesses i.e Balbir Singh, Advocate and Dharam Singh Yadav Vasika Navis remain to be examined by the petitioners and they were summoned through the process of the Court for different dates. However, they could not come present and therefore, the petitioners were not at fault. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners shall conclude their evidence if one more opportunity is granted to them. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. I am of the opinion that no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff-respondents in case one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners at their own risk and responsibility to conclude the remaining evidence as aforesaid. The respondents can very well be compensated by way of payment of costs which are assessed at Rs. 3.000/-. 5. Let the parties be present before the trial Court on 27.1.2010 on which date the trial Court shall fix the case granting one opportunity to the petitioners to examine their remaining witnesses as aforesaid. However, the aforesaid opportunity shall be granted subject to payment of costs as assessed above and the remaining evidence shall be brought by the petitioners at their own risk and responsibility.