In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 142 of 2008 Date of Decision:April 22, 2009 Parmal Singh ---Petitioner versus Mangat Ram another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. S.S.Walia,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. A complaint was filed by the petitioner-Parmal Singh on the allegation that on the night intervening 9th and 10th October, 1999 at about 11-00 P.M. respondents No. 1 and 2 forcibly dismantled a brick wall on the south western side of the disputed shop and fixed a wooden door along with frame. The shop was locked by the respondents. Articles lying inside the shop, rented out to Siya Nand by the petitioner, had been removed by the respondents. In the morning respondents threatened the complainant that if he ever tried to claim possession of the shop, he would be liquidated. The allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIR were investigated and cancellation report was submitted by the police. The same was not accepted by the petitioner and it was treated as a complaint. In support of his case Crl. Revision No. 142 of 2008 -2- petitioner examined two witnesses and closed his evidence without himself stepping into the witness box. In these circumstances, learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Panchkula dismissed the complaint on the ground that since petitioner himself has failed to step into the witness box despite the fact that he had not accepted the cancellation report. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Session Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 5.7.2008. Hence the present revision petition. The reasons given by learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Panchkula, while dismissing the complaint, do not suffer from any infirmity. In appeal only one more opportunity to lead evidence by the petitioner was sought and the same was rightly rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula as the preliminary evidence had been closed by the petitioner himself. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as no interference is called for. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE April 22, 2009 PARAMJIT