Civil Revision No.2752 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2752 of 2010 Date of Decision:15.09.2010 Shingara Singh & anr. .... petitioners Versus Smt.Nasib Kaur & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.G.S.Punia,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby their application for leading additional evidence has been declined vide impugned order. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the documents sought to produced on record are per se admissible and same will enable the Court to adjudicate the matter effectively and therefore the prayer of the petitioners should have been allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that evidence of the plaintiffs- respondents was closed on 05.03.2002 and since then the petitioners have Civil Revision No.2752 of 2010 2 availed numerous opportunities and their evidence was closed on three occasions by orders of the Court dated 06.06.2007, 23.11.2007 and 22.01.2009. On two occasions, they were granted opportunity by this Court and thus, from the conduct of the petitioners, it is crystal clear that they want to delay the proceedings and are not pursuing their case with due diligence and are not entitled to any relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the case remained fixed for petitioners' evidence for more than 8 years and their evidence was closed by the order of the Court and in spite of the fact that this Court had granted them opportunity to produce their evidence, still they have failed to produce relevant documents and therefore it is writ large that they were not pursuing their case diligently. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 15.09.2010 neenu