IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3739 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 28, 2011. Piara Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Gram Panchayat of village Tongapur and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 06.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Rajpura vide which evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.3739 of 2010 Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, the present petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.598 situated at village Tongapur Tehsil Dera Bassi District Patiala and suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in his possession. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that later on petitioner-plaintiff had withdrawn his relief for declaration and had pressed for relief for permanent injunction only. Suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat. Issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff. Many opportunities were availed by petitioner- plaintiff for evidence and however, no other evidence was present despite last opportunity when the impugned order was passed by learned trial Court on 06.05.2010, which reads as under- “No PW is present today. Today, it was the last opportunity given to the plaintiff to conclude the evidence. Costs also not paid. The plaintiff has availed as many as 9 opportunities to conclude the evidence. The present case pertains to the year 2005 and the issues were framed on 28.9.2006. No ground is made out for further adjournment. Therefore, plaintiff evidence is closed by the court order. Now, case is adjourned to 31.5.2010 for evidence of the defendant on filing of PF, DM and list of witnesses within 5 days.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence as affidavit regarding examination-in-chief is already on record and however, he could not be cross examined. 2 CR No.3739 of 2010 It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents- defendants that petitioner-plaintiff has already been cross-examined on behalf of respondents-defendants and documents have also been tendered on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff as is clear from order dated 26.11.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced certified copies of various Zimni orders passed by learned trial Court, which are taken on record. Perusal of said orders shows that after cross-examination of petitioner-plaintiff and after tendering documents, one last opportunity was given to plaintiff to adduce any other evidence subject to payment of `500/- as costs. However, on 06.05.2010 when the impugned order was passed, neither any witness was present nor costs were paid. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 28, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3