IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.884/2009(O&M) Date of Decision:18.2.2009 Jainendra Gurukul Panchkula ..........Petitioner. Versus Vijay Kumar and others. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Vivek Suri,Advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner-plaintiff (a registered Society)- aggrieved against the order dated 10.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kurukshetra whereby its application for fixing the case for leading plaintiff's evidence was dismissed,-has filed the present petition, through its Secretary under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the said order. Briefly stated, petitioner-plaintiff on 23.2.2000 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants restraining them from putting any hindrance on 24' wide connecting road and further restraining them from putting any iron gate and for stopping the entry of the petitioners and the school of the petitioner Society. Respondents-defendants filed reply. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 29.9.2000. CR NO.884/2009(O&M) 2 Evidence of the petitioner was closed on 4.2.2003 and that of defendants on 17.12.2003. After giving six opportunities, for rebuttal evidence, it was closed on 2.9.2004 and the case was fixed for final arguments. Thereafter, upon an application for amendment of the plaint, the issues were re-cast/re- framed on 18.7.2005. On the same day, petitioner-plaintiff filed an application for demarcation, which stood dismissed by the learned trial Court on 29.9.2008. When the case was once again at the stage of rebuttal evidence, if any, on recast issues and arguments, the petitioner-plaintiff Society filed an application for again fixing the case for plaintiff's evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 10.1.2009, which is under challenge in the present petition. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that due to illegal dismissal of petitioner's application for leading evidence in affirmative on re- cast/reframed issues, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to it. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and perusing the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel and the same is rejected. Originally issue was “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?” OPP. After the amendment of the plaint, though the said issue was bifurcated into two parts, yet the material point remained the same on which evidence had already been led by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court, has noticed in the impugned order that the amendment made was only with regard to a clerical mistake and no material CR NO.884/2009(O&M) 3 alteration in the original prayer was made. Another factor which weighed with the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, was that though the issues were reframed/ recast on 18.7.2005, the petitioner remained silent for more than three years, and filed the present application only thereafter,which was nothing but an abuse of process of law and just to delay the proceedings, which are lingering on for the last more than eight years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out anything which may suggest that the observations made by the learned trial Court, while rejecting application for leading evidence, is against material on record so as to persuade this Court to interfere in the matter. For the reasons stated above,the present petition stands dismissed in limine. No costs. 18.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge