force that on February 2, 2009 the learned Additional District Judge fixed the case for 17.3.2009 for evidence of the petitioner. On that day, the matter was adjourned to 16.4.2009. However, since the Presiding Officer happened to be on leave, the matter was adjourned to 12.5.09 on which date, the request of the petitioner for adjournment of the case was granted with a direction to the petitioner to produce the entire evidence on 23.7.2009 on which date, the last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to conclude its evidence on 24.8.2009. The petitioner intended to examine only Harminder Paul, Director-Cum-Authorized person of the petitioner Firm to depose in the case. The said witness is residing at Ludhiana. The affidavit to be tendered on behalf of the said witness by way of his Examination-in-Chief was in fact prepared and a copy of the same was handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent so that the counsel may prepare the questionnaire and one additional visit of the witness to Panchkula Courts may be avoided. This document to be filed by the petitioner by way of his Examination-in-Chief was handed over on 24.8.2009. The learned trial court adjourned the matter to 22.9.2009 and the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that this date has been fixed only for Cross-examination of the witness. The counsel even noted the date of 22.9.2009 for Pws on its brief. On 22.9.2009 the aforementioned witness was present in the Court. However, it transpired on the proceedings that the evidence of the petitioner had already been shut out by the Court vide order dated 24.8.2009. Faced with the situation, the petitioner moved an application for review of the order dated 24.8.2009, which has also been dismissed. I have well considered these submissions.
