Civil Revision No.6943 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6943 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.03.2009. Smt. Rekha Rani and another .....Petitioners Versus Janeshwar and another ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No.1 ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The defendants-petitioners have applied for the invalidation of the impugned order dated 8.12.2008, vide which their plea for additional evidence was declined by the learned Trial Court. It is apparent from the record that, in the course of the impugned application filed before the learned Trial Court, the defendants-petitioners did not make a mention of the fact that their evidence had been closed under the orders of the Court. It is presently common ground otherwise that the order dated 1.12.2008, vide which the evidence of the defendants-petitioners was ordered to be closed under the orders of the Court, never ever came to be challenged and had, thus, attained finality. It is only at the time of Civil Revision No.6943 of 2008 -2- **** arguments before this Court that the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 pointed out the omission of the above averment in the course of the application for additional evidence which had been filed before the learned Trial Court. In order to find out the authenticity or otherwise of that averment, I called upon the learned counsel the defendants-petitioners to point out where exactly the relevant averment appeared in that application (Annexure P-1). The learned Counsel had to concede that there is no averment in the course of the application (Annexure P-1) that the evidence of the defendants-petitioners had been closed under the orders of the Court. Though there can be no factual dispute with the plea on behalf of the defendants-petitioners that they were given exceptionally shorter dates for concluding their evidence, it also cannot be ignored from consideration that order dated 1.12.2008 directing the closure of evidence of the defendants-petitioners was not challenged and had, thus, attained finality. It is also apparent from the record that, in the course of the relevant application (Annexure P-1) and in the petition before this Court, the fact of closure of evidence under the orders of the Court was not mentioned. In the circumstances of the case, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 30, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge