87 a1 1 4 Reaular Second Apoeal N3035 of 2009 10 8 M 1 be IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 March 2011e 1 j Reqular Second Aooeal N3035 of 2009 lO S Ml 0 0 Sito e e eAppel lant I 0 Versus Ajaib Singh and others a Respondents Z CORAM HONBLE MR1USTICE MOHINDER PAL 1e Whether Reportersof Iocal papers may be allowed to see I the judgment7 Z 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not C 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 e2 Z Presentl MrDeepakAggarwalAdvocate for the appellant MreBinderjitSingh Advocate for respondentsNos 1 to 4 6 to 8 and 10t0l3 MOHINDER PAL J The hereinafter referred to as the plaintif IS in second appeal whose su it for declaration with the KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.09 12: 32 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 6 2 S Reqular Second Aopeal Nom3035 of 2009 O S M l consequentialrelief of permanent injunctionand possession in respect of the Iand in dispute filed against the defendantsrespondents hereinafter referred to as the defendants whO are her plaintiffsJ close relations has been dismissed by both the Courts below After hearing the Iearned counsel for the appellant and going through the records of the case I do not see any merit in this appealfor the reasons to be givenhereinafter 0 The chaliengein the instant suit filed by the plaintiff U against the defendants was to the registeredWiil dated 20101994 I C3 and mutation No6916 sanctioned on the basis of said Will pertainingto I the Iand to the extent of 116 share described in the headenote of the Z plaint claiming that the plaintiff was owner to the extent of 1124 share of the said Iand The said WiII had been executed by Sant tZ Kaur sister of Smt Baggo mother of the plaintiff Smt Sant Kaur had died issueless Smt Sant Kaur had two sisters namely Smt Baggo Z mother of the plaintiff and SmtNihal Kaur mother of defendants Ajaib QO Singh Satnam Singh Nirmal Singh and JaspalSingh Defendant Ajit 7 Singhis the son of SmtBaggo and brother of the piaintiff The father Z of deceased Smt Sant Kaur namely Kishan Singh was having a brother CL namely Bishan Singh Bagga Singh was the son of Bishan Singh Sukhdev Singh Dara Singh and Balbir Singh defendants and Nachhattar Singh since deceased and representedby defendants Manjit Kaur widow of Nachhattar Singh Rani KaurVirpal Kaur and Jalandhar SingI rninor child ren of Nachhattar SinghJ are the sons of Bagga Singh Smt Sant Kaur had died on 122002 after executing Will dated 26101994 in favour of AjaibSingh Satnam Singh JaspalSingh Nirmal Si ngh sons of Inder Singh son of SmtNihal Kaur in respectof KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.09 12: 32 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 7 3 4 Reaular Second Appeal No3035 of 2009 t0 8 M l the suitland to the extent of 113share AjitSingh son of SmtBaggo to the extent of 113 share and Sukhdev Singh Nachhattar Singh Dara Singhand Balbir Singhto the extent of 113share The trial Court on the basis of the pleadingsof the parties framed issues and fixed the case for evidence of the plaintiff The plaintiff even after availing eight effective opportunities including the Iast opportunity failed to conclude her evidence The plaintiff had filed 0 her affidavit as Exhibit PWe lIA and that of BharpurSingh as 0 Exhibit P21A on 25102006 However thereafter both the plaintiff I C5 and BharpurSinghaforesaid failed to appear in Court for the purposes of I crosseexamination In all as mentioned above the plaintiff availed Z eight opportunities but failed to produce any evidence on record It was under these circumstances that the trial Court closed the c evidence of the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil I Procedure and dismissed her suit Ill the absence of any evidence vide Z judgment and decree dated 2072007 The appeal preferred by m the plaintiffagainst the judgment a and decree passed by the triai Court 7 was dismissed by the Iower appellateCourt vide judgment and decree Z dated 7 102008 When the plaintifffailed to bring any evidence on 0 record to substantiate her claim in the suit despite availing sufficient opportunitiesfor the purpose and therefore her evidence was closed under Order 17 RuIe 30f the Code of Criminal Procedure no fault can be found with the impugnedjudgmentsand decrees The parties cannot be allowed to prolong the Iitigation unnecessarily It IS obvious that the party who prolongsthe Iitigation either does not have reliable evidence in herlhis favour or she Ihe IS In possessiotl of weak evidence In this case four Iast opportunities were afforded KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.09 12: 32 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 1 1 A Reaular Second Aopeal No 3035 of 2009 lO S M I V to the plaintiff but again and again keepingin view the interests of justice the trial Court showed indulgenceand kept on adjourning the matter on the request of counsei for the plaintiffbefore the trial Cour As the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence even thereafter the trial Court was quite justifiedin closing the evidence of the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 30f the Code of Civil Procedure because there 1 Q has to be some end to the Iitigation The Iower appellateCourt 0 was under the circumstances justified Ill upholding the approachof 0 the trial Cour I t5 In view of the factual position discussed above I do not find any ilIegaIity or perversity Ill the findings recorded by both the er z Courtsbelow which may give rise to any substantial question of Iaw ResultantlYthis appealis herebydismissed beingwithout any merit CC I 6 0 Datedl March 20110 MOHINDER PAL a JUDGE m 7 Z 1 r 13 1 IAPO 7e KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.09 12: 32 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document