CR No. 8213 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8213 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: December 17, 2010 Hazoor Singh ...Petitioner Versus Daljit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The petitioner/plaintiff No.3 has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha, vide which his evidence was closed by order. The petitioner/plaintiff No. 3, alongwith others, filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 24.9.2004 passed by the Collector, Gidderbaha, in the application for redemption No. 8/11.2.2003 titled “Daljit Singh and others versus Puran Singh and others”, vide which order of redemption regarding the land measuring 116 kanals 2 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Thehri, Tehsil Gidderbaha, has been passed, is illegal, null and void, in-effective and inoperative qua their rights and that they are the owners/co-sharers of the land in dispute and for CR No. 8213 of 2010 2 permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from dispossessing them from that land in execution of that order. After issues were framed by the trial court, the suit was postponed for the evidence of the plaintiffs. After a number of opportunities were granted to them for that purpose, their evidence was closed, vide impugned order. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two of the witnesses; namely, Hazoor Singh and Manpreet Singh were produced before the trial court and their examination-in-chief was recorded on 20.9.2010 and cross-examination was deferred on the request of the opposite counsel. Instead of that evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order. At least they should have been given an opportunity to produce those witnesses for their cross-examination. They shall be materially prejudiced in case one more opportunity is not granted for producing those witnesses in the court in order to enable the defendants to cross-examine them. The intention of the petitioner/plaintiff to delay the disposal of the suit is very much clear from the proceeding orders which have been re- produced in the grounds of revision. After the case was fixed for their evidence, they moved an application for grant of ad-interim injunction and at their request the suit was adjourned repeatedly for arguments on that application. The arguments were not addressed by their counsel on that application for four years and after that, that application was got dismissed as withdrawn. In between the suit was also adjourned for their evidence but no evidence was produced. On 3.9.2009, the trial court was informed about the death of one of the plaintiffs and on the next date, an application was filed for impleading his legal representatives and the same was allowed on that very date. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed another application for CR No. 8213 of 2010 3 recasting the issues on 28.10.2009, which was adjourned more than a dozen of times for arguments, which were not advanced by their counsel. The case was again fixed for their evidence for 27.7.2010. After availing three opportunities, they produced two witnesses, whose examination-in-chief was recorded and cross-examination was deferred on the request of the opposite counsel. On the adjourned date, those witnesses were not produced, though in the previous order, it was mentioned that it was the last opportunity which was being allowed and the plaintiffs were also ordered to take dasti summons for effecting service on their witnesses and on their own responsibility. On the request of the plaintiffs, further adjournment was granted but they failed to produce any evidence on the adjourned date. Keeping in view that more than sufficient opportunities had already been allowed, including many last opportunities, the trial court closed their evidence by order. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the said order suffers from any illegality. Had the plaintiffs been serious, they must have produced their witnesses on the adjourned dates. Non-production of those witnesses shows their intention to further delay the trial of the case. The issues were framed on 20.4.2005 and five years have already passed since then. As per the provisions of the amended CPC, the plaintiffs were entitled to three opportunities but they have been granted much more opportunities and they were even forewarned, by incorporating in the order that last opportunity was being granted to them. No case is made out for grant of any further opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the evidence. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. December 17, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE CR No. 8213 of 2010 4