Civil Revision No. 798 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 798 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.2.2010 Gurdeep Singh ..... Petitioner vs Balbir Kaur and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Deol, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed by order of the court. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for declaration filed by the predecessor of respondent- Balkar Singh against the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 25.2.2005. The case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff for the first time on 23.9.2006. After closing of plaintiff's evidence, the defendant/petitioner evidence started on 24.9.2009. However, the plaintiff Balkar Singh expired on 12.8.2009 and his legal representatives filed application for bringing themselves on record in which notice was issued on 24.9.2009 to the petitioner/defendant for 12.11.2009 for filing reply as well as for producing the evidence. He submitted that the petitioner/defendant could not do the needful as his wife fell ill and admitted in Dayanand Hospital, Patiala. She expired on 6.12.2009. The last rites/bhog ceremony of the wife of the petitioner was completed on 13.12.2009. It was further submitted that the petitioner is 62 years of age and is a patient of Paralysis and his half body is also not functional. He submitted that due to family circumstances, he could not produce his evidence which resulted in closing of his evidence. He prayed that in case Civil Revision No. 798 of 2010 (2) one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the next date. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that aim of the petitioner is only to delay the proceedings. He submitted that the order of the court below is perfectly right as number of opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts submitted by the learned counsel are borne out from the record. Admittedly, plaintiff Balkar Singh expired on 12.8.2009. Notice was issued to the petitioner in the application moved by the respondents on 24.9.2009 for filing reply and producing defendants' evidence. It is also not in dispute that wife of the petitioner expired on 6.12.2009, whose last rites were completed on 13.12.2009. The reasons given by the petitioner, who is stated to be suffering from paralysis and is aged about 62 years, for not producing the evidence are beyond his control. The case is stated to be fixed before the court below today itself. In view of the above facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order dated 19.1.2010, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the next date, which shall be 17.3.2010. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete his entire evidence on the date already fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 23.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge