Civil Revision No.924 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.924 of 2007 Date of decision:02.02.2010. M/s Sant Gopal ...Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Kubhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vaneet Yadav, Advocate, for Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Initially, the evidence of the plaintiff – petitioner was ordered to be closed under the orders dated 09.12.2004 of the learned Trial Court. A revision petition was filed against that order, which came to be allowed vide order dated 19.09.2005 of this Court. The plaintiff-petitioner was “afforded one opportunity to conclude his entire evidence at his own responsibility and without the assistance of the Court”. The petitioner herein was also required to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs thereof. The further order granted by this Court was that in case of the non-payment of costs or conclusion of evidence on the date of aforementioned, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff – petitioner concluded its evidence. The matter is presently listed for recording of the evidence of the party opposite. It was thereafter that the petitioner herein filed a plea under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave of the Court to summon certain record. It is that endeavour which Civil Revision No.924 of 2007 -2- was aborted by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order which is under challenge presently in the revision petition before this Court. I have been through the impugned order and the material obtaining on the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to invite my attention to any portion of the relevant application wherever the exact required record could be indicated. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, in fact, the plaintiff – petitioner had summoned the relevant record in affirmative evidence, but its availability could not be ensured. However, he states that the availability of that record would enable the learned Trial Court to dispose of the controversy completely and effectually. It can safely be culled out from the aforesaid discussion that after the initial closure of the evidence of the petitioner herein, it is only a one-time opportunity which had been afforded to him to conclude its evidence. Order dated 19.09.2005 granted by this Court made it absolutely clear that the allowance of the petition was subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs, that it was the responsibility of the plaintiff – petitioner to conclude its evidence on the adjourned date and further that in case he was not able to do so, the petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. In that view of things, the plaintiff – petitioner cannot be heard to insist upon the requisition of that very record which had to be, on its own showing, compulsively presented in the affirmative evidence. The petition, being denuded of merit, is ordered to be dismissed. The interim order dated 22.02.2007 shall stand vacated. Registry is directed to inform the learned Trial Court, accordingly February 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE