IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6700 of 2009 Date of decision : 17.12.2009 Jagdev Singh Grewal and others … Petitioners Versus Sardarni Prem Parkash Kaur and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Sabina, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking necessary directions to the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Ludhiana to decide the case expeditiously, within a limited period on day to day hearing. It has been averred in the grounds of revision petition that the petitioners had filed a civil suit seeking separate possession by way of partition. The suit was filed on 20.9.1990. On 6.3.2001, the following order was passed in Civil revision No.97 of 2001 (Annexure P-1):- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgments report in AIR 1974 SC 1719, (1982) 3 SCC 408, 1993 (1) RRR 28, (1994-2)PLR 711 and 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 511 to contend that the order of trial court dismissing the application of the plaintiff for impleading Kamaljit Kaur, Harpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh as party defendant to the suit is clearly erroneous. On carefully going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel, I find that they have no application to the facts of the present case. The amendment sought in the plaint which was instituted in 1990 is clearly an attempt to delay the proceedings in the suit. During the course of hearing of this civil revision, it has come to my notice that suit was filed in 1990 and since 18.2.1999 it is being adjourned every month for the evidence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is yet to conclude his evidence. CR No.6700 of 2009 Trial Court is directed to take up the proceedings on day to day basis and give only two opportunities to the plaintiff to conclude his evidence failing which his evidence be closed. Dismissed.” The case of the petitioners is that in spite of the said order, the case of the petitioners has still not been heard and decided and is pending for the last many years. On 17.11.2009, the revision petition came up for hearing and explanation of the concerned judicial officer as to why the order dated 6.3.2001 has not been complied with, was called for. The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana has sent the following comments:- Explanation in Civil Revision No.6700 of 2009 Respectfully submits that Misc.application titled as Jagdev Singh Grewal etc. Versus Sardarni Prem Parkash Kaur and others, for restoration of the suit was filed before the Predecessor of this Court on 9.5.2001, as the main suit was dismissed in default on 12.4.2001 when it was pending for plaintiff’s evidence. Some of the respondents have appeared and filed their written replies. The issues on this application were framed on 2.1.2006. The applicant Jagdev Singh tendered his affidavit in examination- in-chief on 13.1.2007 in the court of learned Predecessor and now the application is still pending for cross examination of applicant and remaining evidence of the applicant and fixed for 12.2.2010. The undersigned joined duty at Ludhiana on 12.6.2009 and the file was put up before me for the first time on 9.10.2009. The order dated 6.3.2001 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Revision No.97 of 2001 is not on the file of this misc.application. It might be attached with the main file of civil suit title Jagdev Singh Grewal etc. Versus Sardarni Prem Parkash Kaur and others, which was dismissed in default on 12.4.2001. The original file has not been summoned so far. However, I assure your goodself to dispose off the misc. application at the earliest by giving special attention and giving short adjournments. Submitted please.” 2 CR No.6700 of 2009 A perusal of the comments sent by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana reveals that in fact, the suit was dismissed in default on 12.4.2001. Thereafter, an application was filed for restoration of the suit on 9.5.2001. After completion of service of the respondents, issues were framed on 2.1.2001 and thereafter, the case is pending for evidence of the applicant-Jagdev Singh. Thus the correct factual position has not been disclosed by the petitioners while filing the present revision petition. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. [ SABINA ] JUDGE 17.12.2009 sd 3