Civil Revision No.534 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.534 of 2009 Date of Decision:30.01.2009 Omi Devi ....petitioner Versus Darshana & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.B.S.Dhull,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 14.01.2009 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Div)Kaithal, vide which her application for allowing her to be examined as plaintiff's witness has been closed. As per the averments made in the application by the petitioner before the trial Court, it was stated that due to enmity in the village the plaintiff was residing at village Sandeel, Tehsil Narwana, Distrcit Jind, and she had met her counsel only after closing of her evidence. The counsel in her case had been engaged by the husband of the plaintiff. The counsel had sent a letter on the previous address of the plaintiff which could not be delivered to her and therefore she could not attend the Court in order to be examined as a witness. The application was opposed by the defendants and it was submitted that the plaintiff had already examined two witnesses in support of her case and did not appear as a witness deliberately in her own case. It was further submitted that there is no valid reason to allow her prayer. While rejecting her application vide impugned order, the trial Court Civil Revision No.534 of 2009 2 observed that the plaintiff/petitioner had availed of five effective opportunities for leading her evidence and two witnesses were examined on 30.04.2008 by her. The plaintiff could not conclude her entire evidence despite sufficient opportunities provided to her. Vide order dated 30.07.2008 the case was adjourned to 24.09.2008 for defendant evidence. Thereafter the defendants had examined three witnesses in their favour and now the case is fixed for arguments and rebuttal evidence if any. Therefore, the grounds taken by the plaintiff/petitioner in support of her application appear to be false and frivolous. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. I find that petitioner was allowed sufficient opportunities to lead her evidence and even after her evidence was closed, the case was adjourned for at least five dates during which the defendants/respondents also concluded their evidence and still the plaintiff/petitioner did not come forward to examine herself. Thus, the application filed by her for allowing her to be examined at the stage of arguments is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings of the case which have reached the final stage. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 30.01.2009 neenu