CR No. 2642 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 8.5.2009 Civil Revision No. 2642 of 2009 (O&M) Dalbir Singh and others .. Petitioners v. Balbir Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 20.4.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the evidence of the petitioners- plaintiffs was closed by order of the Court. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction, in which the evidence of the petitioners was closed earlier vide order dated 7.10.2008. In a challenge to the aforesaid order, this Court, vide order dated 11.11.2008, granted two effective opportunities to the petitioners to close their evidence subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. The petitioners having not completed the evidence in two effective opportunities granted by the learned court below, the evidence was again closed vide order dated 20.4.2009. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that two effective opportunities, in terms of the order passed by this Court earlier, were not granted to the petitioners. On one date, Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar could not attend the proceedings, as she was to appear in another court, whereas on the other date, the expert, who was to take the photographs of the disputed signatures and the thumb impressions could not appear because of his illness. As the circumstances were beyond the control of the petitioners, one more opportunity be granted to the petitioners to complete their evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is a suit, which was fled by the petitioners way back on 12.1.1999, at the stage of evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs. After CR No. 2642 of 2009 [2] passing of order dated 11.11.2008 by this Court, the case was fixed for 19.1.2009 for evidence of the petitiones-plaintiffs. A perusal of the order passed on that date shows that no evidence of the petitioners was present. A request was made for a date, which was the second and last opportunity. On that date, considering the fact that Clerk of the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar, who was summoned could not appear for the reason that she had been bound down to appear in another case in the court at Amritsar. The expert witness, who had to take the photographs of the disputed thumb impressions or the signatures had not even been summoned for that date, meaning thereby even if the witness from the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar had brought the summoned record, that would have been an exercise in futility as the expert was not available having not been summoned for taking the photographs. It was only on 2.3.2009 that application for permission to take photographs of the disputed signatures was filed. Considering the aforesaid facts, another opportunity was granted to the petitioners-plaintiffs. On the next date of hearing, still adjournment was sought on the ground that the expert could not appear due to his illness and application was filed for getting the thumb impressions or signatures examined from other witness. As two effective opportunities, in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court, had already been granted to the petitioners-plaintiffs, which they failed to avail of, I do not find any reason to grant any further opportunity. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.5.2009 mk