Civil Revision No. 1134 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1134 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.02.2010 Ghanshayam ....Petitioner Versus Bhoop Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 16.2.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahendergarh, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for additional evidence, stands dismissed. The petitioner had moved an application for leading additional evidence on the plea, that the petitioner was driver by profession and, therefore, could not be present in Court for giving evidence. The learned trial Court considered the application, and held, that in spite of number of opportunities, the petitioner had failed to lead evidence, and consequently, costs of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only) was imposed upon the defendants. However, no evidence was adduced by the defendants, and thereafter costs was enhanced to Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), which was directed to be deposited in Free Legal Aid Civil Revision No. 1134 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Authority and the case was fixed for 29.8.2007. On that day, neither the costs was deposited in Sub Divisional Free Legal Authority, nor evidence was adduced. On account of non-payment of the costs, the evidence was closed. The learned trial Court held that once the evidence was closed by order for non-payment of costs, no ground for leading additional evidence was made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the non- appearance of the petitioner was beyond his control because of his duties, as a driver. This cannot be a ground for non-appearance before the learned trial Court. In any case, there is no justification for non-payment of costs imposed. The order passed closing the evidence is in consonance with the provisions of Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. No ground, therefore, was made out to lead additional evidence by ignoring the positive order passed under Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is mandatory. No ground for interference is made out in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 22, 2010 R.S.