Civil Revision No.5744 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5744 of 2011 Date of Decision : 20th September, 2011 Harjinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Sewa Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Damanjeet, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Harjinder Singh one of the legal representatives of original defendant Harchand Singh, since deceased, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Fatehgarh Sahib, thereby closing evidence of defendant by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant for another opportunity to the legal representatives of the defendant for their evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer, but find myself unable to accept the same. Perusal of the impugned order as well as zimini orders of the trial court as reproduced in the revision petition Civil Revision No.5744 of 2011 -2- reveals that eleven effective opportunities including three last opportunities were granted to the legal representatives of the defendant for their evidence. Consequently the trial Court was left with no option but to close the evidence of the legal representatives of the defendant by Court order. The legal representatives of the defendant were also put on caution by granting three last opportunities but still they did not like to lead their evidence. Moreover, costs of adjournment imposed on the preceding date of hearing by the trial Court before passing impugned order, were also not paid. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no justification for granting another opportunity to legal representatives of the defendant for their evidence. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, perversity or lack of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 20th September, 2011 'raj'