CR No.6524 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6524 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 11, 2009 Amrik Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Balwinder Singh etc. ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. -- Sabina, J. (oral) Plaintiff-Amrik Singh filed a suit for joint possession as co- owner of the property in dispute. Vide impugned order dated 29.9.2009, (Annexure P1), the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application was filed by the plaintiff for seeking report of the Excerpts. Now, the report of the Excerpts had been received and plaintiff only wanted to examine one official to prove those Excerpts. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Prema vs. Smt. Jagoo and others 2006(1) PLR 561 wherein it was held that the summoning of witnesses was a procedural CR No.6524 of 2009 (O&M) 2 process in the trial of the case and, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to be non-suited on mere technicalities and to advance the cause of substantive justice, the Record Keeper of the Office of Sub Registrar was liable to be summoned. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that after the issues were framed, a number of opportunities had already been availed by the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Even five last opportunities had been granted to the plaintiff to conclude his evidence but he had failed to do so. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was left with no other alternative but to close the evidence of the plaintiff by order as the plaintiff had availed numerous opportunities including five last opportunities to conclude his evidence. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on its own facts. Hence, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed (Sabina) Judge November 11, 2009 arya CR No.6524 of 2009 (O&M) 3