C.R.No.7352 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.7352 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:30.11.2010 Jasbir Kaur ...Petitioner vs Kashmiri Lal Arora ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) C.M.No.30475-CII allowed subject to all just exceptions. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 16.10.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh, whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of the Court. As per the averments made in this petition civil suit filed against her by the respondent titled as Kashmiri Lal Arora v. Jasbir Kaur is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),Chandigarh, and in that case plaintiff-respondent has already led his evidence. The petitioner has also led some evidence. The matter was listed on 16.10.2010 for evidence of the petitioner. On that date, petitioner moved an application for summoning the witness from the Estate Office, Chandigarh but the same was rejected illegally resulting into the miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that vide impugned order petitioner has C.R.No.7352 of 2010 2 been denied a fair chance to prove her case as she intended to summon the record from the Estate Office, Chandigarh in order to prove her case and simply because the application for summoning the witnesses was not properly stamped, she could not have been denied the opportunity to lead evidence and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to reasonable opportunity to prove her case. It may be noticed at this stage that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is present in Court. At this Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate, appeared in the case and has referred to various zimni orders passed by the trial Court in the case, and has argued that petitioner has already availed numerous opportunities to lead and conclude the evidence and on the last date of hearing petitioner was granted last opportunity with a further stipulation that no further adjournment shall be granted and since on 16.10.2010, no evidence of the petitioner was present, there was no justification for summoning the witnesses as alleged. Be that as it may, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner is not pursuing her case bona fide, as it may be noticed that even when the Court had pointed out to the petitioner regarding the non affixation of necessary court fee stamp on the application for summoning the witness the answer was that the application be decided in any way. Not only this, in the order dated 14.6.2010, it finds mention that the petitioner had misbehaved with the opposite counsel and an apology was tendered on her behalf. It is also relevant to mention that evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was closed on 18.3.2009 and the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence for 27.4.2009 on filing of list of witnesses etc. within C.R.No.7352 of 2010 3 ten days with the stipulation that in case of failure to do so no Court assistance would be provided. It is not in dispute that petitioner has not filed any list of witnesses before the trial Court still she was allowed to summon the official witnesses from the Estate Office with the relevant record. Thereafter, one clerk of the Estate Office had appeared and was examined. Even after that, on 14.9.2010, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to bring her remaining evidence on 27.9.2010. On 27.9.2010 the case was adjourned at the request of the petitioner for 16.10.2010 being the last opportunity with further stipulation that no further opportunity shall be granted. In view of the aforesaid facts, no interference is warranted by this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge November 30, 2010 rk