CR No. 6758 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6758 of 2010 Date of decision: October 14, 2010 Noorsain ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, closing the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff by order. The suit was filed by him for declaration to the effect that the order dated 8.10.2001 rejecting his claim for regularization of his services is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and is liable to be set aside and that he is entitled to regularization of his services, as per the instructions issued by the State of Haryana dated 27.5.1993. After the parties completed their pleadings, issues were framed on 17.4.2009 and the case was adjourned for 29.7.2009 for the evidence of the plaintiff. However, neither any evidence was present nor produced on that date or on the adjourned date i.e. 30.9.2009. Thereafter, the suit was adjourned for 5.4.2010 for producing his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. Even on that date, no evidence was present on his behalf. While adjourning the case, it was made clear by the CR No. 6758 of 2010 2 trial court that last opportunity was being granted and no further opportunity shall be granted to him. On the adjourned date, the plaintiff appeared in the witness box and his examination-in-chief was recorded. However, his cross-examination was deferred on the request of the learned State counsel who had appeared for the defendants. For his cross-examination and remaining evidence, the suit was adjourned to 18.8.2010 and it was again made clear that last opportunity had already been granted. On the adjourned date, statement of the the plaintiff was completed but he did not produce any other evidence and the trial court closed his evidence by order. As per the provisions of the amended CPC, the plaintiff was entitled to only three such adjournment and the trial court rightly closed the evidence of the plaintiff by order, as he failed to produce his evidence despite two last opportunity having been granted. No ground is made out for interference in that order and the revision is dismissed accordingly. October 14, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE