Civil Revision No. 3145 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3145 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Prithvi Singh Ravish ...Petitioner Versus Mrs. Poonam Behl and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vikram Sheraon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Chahal, Advocate for the Caveator. S.D.ANAND, J. The relevant matter was fixed before the learned Trial Court on 19.4.2010 for recording of evidence of defendant-petitioner. When the matter was taken up during the pre-lunch period, the learned Trial Court noticed that no witness on his behalf was present. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner-tenant, requested adjournment as defendant-petitioner felt unwell (when he was on way to the Court) and had to be hospitalized. The plea for grant of adjournment was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the party opposite. The matter was ordered to be put up after lunch. Learned counsel representing defendant-petitioner sought time to produce medical certification. When the matter was taken up after lunch, the learned Trial Court noticed that the medical certification had been issued by the City Medical Consultants and not by the Alchemist Hospital where the petitioner was alleged to have been Civil Revision No. 3145 of 2010 -2- **** hospitalized. Learned Trial Court observed that request for adjournment was not bonafide and was aimed at delaying the proceedings of the case. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that one opportunity may be afforded to defendant-petitioner to conclude evidence. Learned counsel for the caveator states that defendant- petitioner had availed as many as six effective opportunities for concluding evidence but had not been able to do so. As already noticed in an earlier part of this order, there is no factual controversy that defendant-petitioner had already availed of six adjournments prior to the date on which the impugned order came to be granted. The fact that defendant/petitioner was reported to have been admitted in Alchemist Hospital but the certification produced was of City Medical Consultants weighed with the learned Trial Court. Apart therefrom, no other witness was present on that date. There is not even a feeble averment that any other witness was present on that date or had been summoned for that date. The impugned order is self – contained in character and it notices acceptable reasoning on the basis whereof closure of evidence of defendant/petitioner was ordered. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 12, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge