Civil Revision No.5910 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5910 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 11, 2008 Smt.Sudesh Rani ...Petitioner VERSUS Shri Narayan Saran Dass ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned orders dated 10.10.2007 and 30.10.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5910 of 2007 : 2 : whereby the evidence of the petitioner is ordered to be closed. Orders closing evidence are challenged in routine through the revision petitions. Generally the Courts tend to interfere in such types of orders may be by awarding some costs. Easy amenability and interference may tend to indicate that parties are inviting such orders purposely to gain time knowingly that these orders would be set right giving the party a chance to lead evidence. There cannot otherwise be much justification for not producing the evidence despite repeated opportunities and as can be seen as an example in the present case. Eighteen opportunities were given and still the evidence was not concluded. Are the Courts to act as a silent spectator and allow the trial to drift endlessly?. No wonder the civil suits are taking so much time to reach conclusion. The petitioner made a prayer for examining Handwriting Expert to examine the signatures on the Will in question. This prayer was objected to by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner had already availed sufficient opportunities and as such was not entitled to further opportunity to examine the Handwriting Expert. Despite objection, the court was indulgent enough and granted one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to examine Handwriting Expert. This, however, was subject to the condition that the evidence of the defendant shall be deemed to be closed if he was not able to examine the witness on the date fixed for the purpose. The condition imposed reads “it is further made clear that defendant shall be adduced handwriting expert, at his own responsibility as he has Civil Revision No.5910 of 2007 : 3 : availed sufficient opportunities for DWS”. The case was accordingly adjourned to 30.10.2007. On that date, no DW was present. Again a request was made which was opposed by the respondent. The trial court then noticed that the petitioner had availed eighteen effective opportunities for DWs and on 19th occasion he had moved the application for examining Handwriting Expert which was allowed as noted above. Court then noticed that it was made clear to the petitioner that he shall not be granted any further opportunity. On 30.10.2007, the petitioner had done nothing to examine the Handwriting Expert. The Court accordingly observed that sufficient opportunities have been availed by the petitioner-defendant and as such no ground was made out for adjournment as prayed for. The defence evidence was accordingly closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner by making reference to the zimni orders would try to contend that the petitioner could not examine the defence witnesses not only on account of reasons attributed to the petitioner, but some other reasons also intervened. I have perused the zimni orders annexed with the petition. It was mainly on account of non-presence of the defence witnesses that the case was required to be adjourned and the petitioner nearly took more than two years to examine defence witnesses which was yet to conclude. Considering the number of opportunities granted to the petitioner and the fact that on 10.10.2007 it was specifically made clear to the petitioner that he would get one opportunity at his risk and responsibility, the impugned orders would not call for any Civil Revision No.5910 of 2007 : 4 : interference on any recognised grounds for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. March 11, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE