CR No.1512 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1512 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.4.2009 Mahender Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Hoshnak Rai and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 14.2.2009 passed by the trial Court whereby application of the petitioner for adducing additional evidence has been rejected. The dispute arises out of a suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2 against the defendant-respondents on February 7, 1992 for mandatory injunction. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner got himself impleaded as one of the defendants and filed written statement along with his counter claim. Issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed on June 12, 1993. No issue was claimed by defendant No.10 (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner). Thereafter, the matter remained pending for recording evidence, which was concluded on November 22, 2000. Defendant No.10 (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner) was proceeded against ex parte. It was only on September 12, 2003, that he was permitted to rejoin the proceedings and thereafter quite belatedly i.e. on October 2, 2003, an application for framing of additional issues was filed by defendant No.10 (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner), which was CR No.1512 of 2009 2 accepted by the trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2004. However, the aforesaid order was challenged by one Kanshi Ram (respondent No.10 in the present revision petition) by filing Civil Revision No.157 of 2005. The aforesaid civil revision was allowed by this Court vide order dated 8.10.2007 and the order dated 11.12.2004 framing additional issues on the application of Sain Ditta (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner) was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the present application for allowing him to lead evidence which was rejected by passing the impugned order. The present revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid order dated 14.2.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Concededly, defendant No.10 (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner) was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 22.11.2000. No application has been filed by Sain Ditta (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner) to set aside that order. It is also relevant to mention that while deciding Civil Revision No. 157 of 2005, this Court observed as under:- “Merely because respondent No.1/defendant No.10, who initially had been proceeded ex parte after filing of the written statement, had been allowed to rejoin the proceedings would not mean that for his purpose now fresh issues are required to be framed and trial to recommence.” In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. April 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE