Civil Revision No. 7179 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7179 of 2009 Date of decision: 4.12.2009 Ashok Kumar ......petitioner Versus Vishwamitter .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner moved an application for transfer of his case on the allegation that about ten days back, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had been demanded by Sandeep Sharma, Reader and he was threatened that in case the amount was not paid, the case will be decided against him. It was further alleged that the Judge was very eager to decide the case so as to swallow this amount. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order dated 9.10.2009. Vide the impugned order dated 7.11.2009, the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition Civil Revision No. 7179 of 2009 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned District Judge in para Nos. 2 to 4 of the impugned order has observed as under:- “2. Petitioner/plaintiff Ashok has filed a suit for possession by way of partition on 18.8.2006. That suit was contested and some interim relief was granted. Appeal against that interim relief was filed and that appeal was got disposed of by the parties by taking an observation on 30.10.2008 that the suit be disposed of by 30.1.2009. The learned trial Court has then made efforts to dispose of the matter in the stipulated period and after giving seven opportunities, the evidence was closed by the plaintiff himself on 3.1.2009. The defendant then closed the evidence on 28.2.2009 and the suit was fixed for 12.3.2009 for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil miscellaneous revision in the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order dated 3.1.2009. When the fact of closing of evidence by the plaintiff himself by making a statement was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court, the revision was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The plaintiff did not address the arguments but instead moved an application under Section 151 CPC for additional evidence. It seems that in order to avoid Civil Revision No. 7179 of 2009 3 unnecessary allegations, the trial Court had allowed that application despite the evidence having closed by the plaintiff himself, so as to produce one Narender as a witness. The plaintiff instead of producing that Narender moved another application for secondary evidence and that application too, was allowed. The case was again adjourned for three days and the plaintiff closed his evidence and the suit was adjourned to 3.9.2009 for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments. However, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence and moved an application for additional evidence which was fixed for reply and arguments. Then again on the date fixed, he moved two more application, one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and another to produce the handwriting expert. After taking the replies, those applications were dismissed and the case was fixed for arguments for 14.10.2009 and again on 15.10.2009 but in the meanwhile, this application was filed on 10.10.2009 and was put up before this Court for the first time on 16.10.2009 because by that time my learned Predecessor had been elevated to Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner was desired to deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- as costs in the event of dismissal of the present petition for paying the same to the opposite Civil Revision No. 7179 of 2009 4 party.” Learned District Judge called for the comments of the Reader and the reply had also been filed by the respondent. The application has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, after appreciating the reply and the comments furnished by the Reader, with Rs.2,000/- as costs . Notice has also been issued to the petitioner under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner were not substantiated on record, the impugned order passed by the District Judge calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 04, 2009 anita