CR No.595 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.595 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.01.2010 Mewa Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Sanjiv Kumar & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dated 21.10.2009 and 9.1.2010. Vide order dated 21.10.2009, evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed, as the petitioner had failed to conclude his evidence in spite of availing more than three opportunities. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 21.10.2009. CR No.595 of 2010 2 Subsequent conduct of the petitioner, therefore, does not entitle him to challenge the order dated 21.10.2009, as the order was accepted, and the trial was allowed to proceed without challenge. The petitioner moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence, which was allowed being not opposed. In pursuance to this order again petitioner did not conclude his evidence, and moved another application for grant of one more opportunity for recording statement of defendant No.2. Prior to moving the application two opportunities to conclude additional evidence were granted. Learned trial court, therefore, did not find any merit in that application, and dismissed it with a cost of Rs.1500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred only). Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the leaned trial court was in error in closing the evidence of the petitioner on the ground that more than three opportunities were not permissible. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the provisions of law restricting three effective opportunities for leading evidence is only directory and not mandatory. There can be no dispute with this proposition. However, the petitioner had accepted the order closing his evidence. Thereafter the defendants had led evidence. An application for leading additional evidence moved by the petitioner was also allowed. The petitioner cannot now be allowed to challenge the order dated 21.10.2009 by his conduct. CR No.595 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application moved by the petitioner should have been allowed as the petitioner had given good reason for not concluding his evidence being sick. Medical certificate in support was also produced. The contention was that the petitioner is to examine himself and the respondent in given circumstances could be compensated with costs, as non-examination of the petitioner will result in rejection of his case. On consideration, I find no force in this contention. Once the evidence was ordered to be closed by order of the court, the petitioner could not have availed opportunity to lead additional evidence. The petitioner in this case was even allowed to lead additional evidence in the interest of justice, therefore, grievance of the petitioner stood removed. The petitioner failed to avail that opportunity to lead evidence and the evidence was thereafter closed after permitting him two opportunities to lead additional evidence. Exercise of powers by the learned trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be perverse or illegal, which may call for interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. 29.01.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge