C.R.No.5298 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5298 of 2009 Date of Decision : 15.10.2009 Dal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Ajmat Singh etc. ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 9.9.2009, whereby an application for leading additional evidence so as to produce on record an application filed by the defendants for correction of khasra girdawari before the Asstt. Collector, IInd Grade, Kurukshetra, was declined. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 states that he has no objection if the petitioner is provided one opportunity to lead additional evidence as sought for, as the suit is pending since the year 1997 and the attempt of the plaintiff-petitioner is to delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other. In view of the concession of learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the application for permission to lead additional evidence is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to prove the alleged application filed by the defendants for correction of khasra girdawari before the Asstt. C.R.No.5298 of 2009 2 Collector, IInd Grade, Kurukshetra, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. The petitioner shall be entitled to one opportunity to prove the aforesaid document. It shall be open to the petitioner to take assistance from the Court to summon any witness to prove the aforesaid document, but it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to cause the appearance of the witness, if any. The failure of the witness to appear for any reason whatsoever shall not be any ground for further adjournment to produce said witness before the learned trial Court. With the said direction, the petition stands disposed of. 15.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE C.R.No.5298 of 2009 3 Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. *** None for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13, despite service. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 are not served, whereas respondent Nos.11 and 12 are reported to have died. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the service upon the said respondents be dispensed with, as the said respondents are proforma respondents and the said respondents are not contesting the suit before the learned trial Court. In view of the above, the service upon respondent Nos.6, 8, 11 and 12 is dispensed with. 15.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE