CR No.524 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.524 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2010 Govind Ram ..Petitioner Vs. Mandir Thakar Dwara & Shivala Trust ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the respondent. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the orders, Annexures P.1 and P.2. Vide Annexure P.1, petitioner/defendant made a statement and closed his evidence and case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence and arguments. There is hardly any reason interfere with this order, as the court could have passed no other order except the one passed on the statement CR No.524 of 2010 2 made by the petitioner for closing his evidence, at this stage the petitioner cannot challenge the order in the absence of the affidavit of the counsel, in support of the averment that presence of the counsel was wrongly marked in the order dated 30.10.1999. This contention otherwise also deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as even in the absence of the counsel the petitioner was competent to close his evidence. Vide Annexure P.2, learned trial court decided the application moved by the petitioner under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for leading expert evidence on behalf of the defendant. Learned trial court dismissed the application by recording that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 30.10.1999. The court found that closure of evidence was not an inadvertent act, but for the reason that the petitioner had availed a number of opportunities, including number of last opportunities on payment of costs, but he failed to conclude his evidence. It was in view of the orders passed by the learned court, on earlier occasion that the petitioner chose to close his evidence. The petitioner after closure of evidence moved an application for leading additional evidence to examine an expert to prove the case. The petitioner, thereafter, did not press the application for leading additional evidence to examine the expert, and withdrew it without liberty to file afresh one on the same cause of action. Second application on the same cause of action, therefore, was CR No.524 of 2010 3 not competent, being barred. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that after withdrawal of this application, on an application moved by the petitioner to examine the expert, the expert was allowed to take photographs and submit his report, and it was after the submission of report that second application was moved to lead additional evidence. On consideration, I find no force in this revision. If by concealing the fact of dismissal of application for leading additional evidence of expert, the learned court was misled to pass an order, cannot advance the case of the petitioner. It is settled law that once application is dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, the second application is not competent. Learned court below, though rejected the application moved by the petitioner on other ground, but the impugned order cannot be interfered with, as second application after dismissal of the first on same cause of action was not competent. No merit. Dismissed. 14.07.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge