Civil Revision No. 2758 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2758 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.5.2011 *** Bhanu Pratap Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Sukhdev Bhatia .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-plaintiff has impugned the order dated 16.3.2011 whereby his evidence has been closed by Court order. Heard. It is evident from the records that earlier the plaintiff was permitted to lead secondary evidence by dint of order dated 19.7.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2010. Threeafter, the secondary evidence could not be concluded within the time framed and the plaintiff again filed a civil revision and this time vide order dated 16.2.2011 this Court granted two opportunities to the plaintiff for leading secondary evidence within one month, during which the plaintiff was directed to conclude the same. The plaintiff availed first opportunity on 11.3.2011 on which date two witnesses were examined by him and the case was adjourned to 16.3.2011 for remaining secondary evidence. On that date no witness was present and the plaintiff filed another application seeking summoning of certain witnesses, but by dint of impugned order the Court below dismissed his application. It appears that the plaintiff has remained negligent throughout in concluding his evidence. Earlier on two occasions he was granted opportunities to conclude his evidence but he failed to do so within the time framed. It was within the knowledge of the plaintiff as to whom he wants to Civil Revision No. 2758 of 2011 2 examine in his secondary evidence, but despite that he filed the application for summoning of witnesses only at the time of availing second and the last opportunity. Thus, it appears that he is unnecessarily delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. However, to avoid prejudice to the respondent and to compensate him for the lapse of the petitioner, an offer has been given by this Court to pay some reasonable cost to the respondent, but the same is not agreeable to the petitioner. That being the attitude, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 09, 2011 Jiten