JUDGMENT Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral):- C.M.No.7670-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1959 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 6.9.2010, Annexure P1, and dated 15.2.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangrur, vide which evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been closed and his request for recalling the said order has been declined, respectively. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for specific performance of contracts dated 15.11.1999, 30.11.2000 and 30.4.2003 entered into between the parties with regard to the sale of land described in heading of the plaint was filed by petitioner-plaintiff. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant. Issues were framed. Case was fixed for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that already seven effective opportunities, including two last opportunities, were availed by petitioner-plaintiff, when the impugned order, dated 6.9.2010, Annexure P1, closing his evidence was passed, which reads as under:- “No PW is present. The ld. Counsel for plaintiff requested for adjournment as PW1 Anupam Kumar has not come present for his cross examination. Heard. File perused. It is revealed that on 16.12.09, it was the second effective last opportunity for the plaintiff to conclude its evidence. Statement of plaintiff was got recorded partly. His further cross examination was deferred. Today neither the plaintiff nor any plaintiff’s witness is present. Since the present case is one of the oldest identified towards `Samadhan 2010'. In the given circumstances, no ground is made out to further adjourn the case for the evidence of plaintiff. As such, the evidence of plaintiff is closed by order. Now case is adjourned to 11.11.2010 for evidence of defendant.” 5. Plea of petitioner-plaintiff that he was present in the Court on that date and, however, he could not appear at the time when the case was called was not accepted by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.2.2010, by observing as under:- “After hearing both the parties, I have gone through the file very carefully with their kind assistance. Plea of petitioner-plaintiff that he was present in the Court on that date and, however, he could not appear at the time when the case was called was not accepted by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.2.2010, by observing as under:- “After hearing both the parties, I have gone through the file very carefully with their kind assistance. By way of the present application for leading evidence, actually, the plaintiff has impliedly challenged the order dated 6.9.2010 whereby his evidence was closed by order. Here it is not out of place to mention that only one witness appeared and that too after grant of last opportunity twice. On 6.9.2010, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed by order due to non-production of any evidence by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had requested for an adjournment. There is nothing on the file to show that Anupam Kumar was present in the Court as has been alleged in the present application. The facts enumerated in the application in hand are substantiated by the record on the file. Even in the reply filed by the defendant, the plaintiff/applicant’s averments have been denied. So far the law laid down in the judicial authority cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is concerned, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, the plaintiff has merely tried to shift the blame. Accordingly, application is dismissed being sans merits. Now case is adjourned to 1.3.2011 for evidence of the defendants.” 6. Hence, in view of these facts, though it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned orders, however, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that his examination-in-chief has already been recorded and he is only to be cross-examined by counsel for the respondent-defendant and hence, he limits his request to the extent that he be allowed to be cross-examined by counsel for the respondent-defendant, so that his statement be read in evidence. 7. Hence, in view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to present himself for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 7. Hence, in view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to present himself for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. However, petitioner-plaintiff is burdened with cost of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. ------------