CR No.4495 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4495 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.7.2010 Jagmohan Lal ......Petitioner(s) Versus Krishan Kumar and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.S. Guliani, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. Vide this order, I shall dispose of two civil revisions i.e. CR Nos.4495 and 4496 of 2010 which have been filed by the plaintiff challenging two separate orders, in the same suit. As per the averments, the petitioner filed civil suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from encroaching upon the public street and making any construction in the said street and closing the windows etc. of the petitioner which open into the street with a further prayer for mandatory injunction for removal of encroachments made by respondents No.1 and 2 in the said public street by installing entry gate, toilets etc. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court requesting that respondents No.1 and 2 be directed not to create hindrance for the inspection of the public street and the construction so raised in the said street through a building Expert so as to enable him to give his report about the nature of the age and structure. According to the petitioner, the construction was raised by respondents No.1 and 2 recently whereas the stand taken by respondents No.1 and 2 is that construction is very old. However, vide impugned order CR No.4495 of 2010 2 dated 26.4.2010, the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was rejected. CR No.4496 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order. The petitioner has also filed CR No.4495 of 2010 for setting aside order dated 14.6.2010 whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he was not at fault as he had taken all the necessary steps for the production of the evidence as he moved an application for allowing the building Expert to inspect the construction of the encroached area of the public street so that the same could be produced in Court as evidence and thereafter, the expert witness was to be produced as witness before the Court to depose regarding the true nature of the encroachment in the public street and thus, the impugned order closing the evidence by order is required to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel or the petitioner and perused the impugned orders in both the revision petitions. Undisputedly, the petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching the public street and mandatory injunction for removal of the gate etc. installed thereupon. After framing of issues, the suit was put on trial. It is for the petitioner to prove the question whether the disputed property in question is a street or not or the same has been encroached upon by respondent No.1 and 2 by leading his evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince this Court as to how the age and nature of the alleged construction over the encroached area was relevant for the purpose of the decision of the case. It may also be noticed that issues in this civil suit were framed as back as on 6.9.2008 and thereafter, numerous opportunities were taken by the petitioner to lead his evidence. However, the petitioner has failed to CR No.4495 of 2010 3 conclude his evidence and has failed to justify the grant further opportunity. The reason given by him that first he wanted to get report of the building expert regarding the age and nature of the construction over the encroached area and then produce evidence, is without any merit as observed above. Thus, I find no merit in his arguments. Resultantly, both the revision petitions are dismissed. July 21, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.4495 of 2010 4 the appellant may comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1(3)PC