IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6295 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.9.2010 Bhule Singh Pardhan ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Prabha Mishra ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner, who is defendant, faced closure of his evidence by virtue of order dated 20.10.2009. The petitioner did not assail that order. Rather, he moved an application on 8.2.2010, after a period of almost four months, again proposing that his evidence be taken on record. In the impugned order it has been observed that the petitioner neither deposited the diet money for summoning the witnesses nor furnished the list of witnesses. In this view of the matter when the evidence of the petitioner stood closed and he was a consistent defaulter in procedure of law, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction when no legal infirmity has been committed by the court below. C.R.No.6295 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The revision petition is dismissed. 28.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss