Civil Revision No. 1734 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1734 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.3.2010 Ved Parkash ....Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated March 4, 2010, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents No. 1 to 4. After completion of his evidence, the case was fixed for evidence of defendants. It was at that stage that the application seeking permission to lead additional evidence was filed. The petitioner/plaintiff sought to produce Ram Chander to prove the fact that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner is material for the purpose of just decision of the case. The statement of Ram Chander is relevant, which will prove the fact that the land in question was infact purchased by the petitioner from him. He further submitted that the petitioner had made all efforts to conclude his evidence, however, on account of certain unavoidable reason the same could not be done. Even on October 23, 2009, the learned Court below while fixing the case for evidence of defendants had directed that in case the evidence of the plaintiffs is available on that day, the same shall be recorded before recording the evidence of defendants. The case was adjourned to November 12, 2009 on that day. However, on November 12, 2009, the defendants did not lead any evidence and on December 15, 2009, the evidence produced by the petitioner was not recorded whereas before the evidence of the defendants, the petitioner could be permitted to lead his evidence. Civil Revision No. 1734 of 2010 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the issues in the present case were framed on January 17, 2008 and the case was fixed for recording of plaintiffs' evidence. On September 3, 2009, the learned Court below granted last opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff for concluding his evidence on the next date i.e. October 23, 2009. On October 23, 2009 again no PW was present. Still the learned Court below while recording that the petitioner/plaintiff does not deserve any further opportunity to lead evidence but while adjourning the case to November 12, 2009 for evidence of defendants directed that in case the plaintiffs' evidence is available on that day, the same may be recorded before recording the evidence of defendants. It is not in dispute that on the next date of hearing the evidence of the plaintiffs was not present. Merely because no DW was present and the case was adjourned for a subsequent date does not mean that the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff even on subsequent dates. It was only one opportunity granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on the next date. As far as the evidence of Ram Chander is concerned which the petitioner is seeking to produce as additional evidence for the purpose of proving the fact that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner from him, it is not in dispute that this was well within the knowledge of the petitioner when the suit was filed by him and it was most important evidence required to be led to show the ownership and possession of the property once the suit was for permanent injunction seeking protection of the possession. With the above facts on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no case for permitting the petitioner to lead additional evidence is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 26.3.2010 JUDGE Reema