CR No. 7958 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7958 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: December 7, 2010 Inderjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Banta Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The petitioner/defendant No.2, Inderjit Kaur, has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SBS Nagar, vide which her evidence was closed by order. The suit was filed by Banta Singh-respondent No.1/plaintiff against the present petitioner and one Kundan Singh for possession of the land in dispute measuring 9 kanals 18 marlas by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 2.10.2000. After the plaintiff closed his evidence, the defendants were called upon to produce their evidence. After a number of opportunities were granted to them, the evidence was closed, vide aforesaid order. According to the petitioner, only three opportunities were granted by the trial court before closing her evidence and, as such, the order is going to cause a great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. At least she is entitled to one more opportunity to produce her evidence. CR No. 7958 of 2010 2 A perusal of the revision petition itself shows that six effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner to produce her evidence. On 8.9.2010 she and the other defendant were granted last opportunity to produce their evidence but they failed to produce the same. Thereafter, also two more opportunities were granted subject to payment of costs but again they failed to conclude their evidence. Keeping in view those facts and that the case was old one, their evidence was closed. The order so passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality. Before closing the evidence, three orders of lesser gravity were passed one after the other. The defendants were forewarned by granting them last opportunity. Further opportunity was granted to them by giving adjournment subject to the payment of costs. Again second adjournment was granted subject to the payment of costs. When such is the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to another opportunity for producing her evidence. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. December 7, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE