Civil Revision No.227 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.227 of 2009 Date of decision : 16.1.2009 Sewa Panthi .....Petitioner Versus Kamal Kishore and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. M.K.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The caveat filed by respondents No.6 and 7 has become infructuous in view of the fact that this petition had been filed on 11.2.2008 and the present petition was filed on 23.9.2008 i.e. much beyond the period for which the caveat could be validly in currency. After the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner had been closed under the orders of this Court on 8.2.2008, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner filed a plea informing the Court that the plaintiff was ailing and had been advised bed rest. A medical certification was also produced in support thereof. Though the impugned order does not pointedly indicate, it is obvious that the purpose of filing of application was to obtain an adjournment for examining the plaintiff-petitioner on the adjourned date. That plea was declined by the learned Trial Court by observing that there was no adequate material to justify the recall of the initial order (regarding closure of evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner). Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argues that the impugned order is harsh inasmuchas it completely disables the plaintiff- Civil Revision No.227 of 2009 -2- **** petitioner from entering the witness box, as his own witness. The plea raised is completely devoid of force. It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order that no PW was present on 8.2.2008. Last opportunity for adducing evidence had certain been granted to the plaintiff-petitioner. The civil suit under reference pertains to the year 1994. It is not the plea on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order proceeds on a factual incorrect premise. In that view of things, the plaintiff- petitioner cannot be held to have a valid grievance with the validity of the impugned order. The dockets in the Civil Courts are fairly heavy and it is obviously repeated adjournments which contribute a lot towards the accumulation of large pendency. It is not the plea of the plaintiff-petitioner that he had summoned any other witness for that date. He has also not tried to explain why the plaintiff-petitioner could not be examined at the opening of his evidence. As per the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to a cause has to be examined in the first instance unless, ofcourse, the leave of the Court is obtained to examine him at a later stage. If a party makes a request to the above effect, it shall obviously have to indicate to the Court the circumstances in support thereof. In that view of things, the Court would be obliged to notice the circumstances under which the party was not being examined in the first go and why the recording of his testimony was being deferred to a later stage. It is not even the averment on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that the leave of the Court had been obtained to examine the plaintiff-petitioner at a later stage. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 16, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No.227 of 2009 -3- ****