Civil Revision No.4754 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4754 of 2008 Date of decision: September 16, 2008 Vinod Kumar …..PETITIONER Versus Mrs Darshna alias Anu …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr S.S.Sodhi, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for appointment of Court Guardian in his respect and for his examination from a board of doctors, was dismissed by learned trial Court, vide order dated 13.5.2008. He is now before this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A suit was filed by the respondent on 19.12.1996 for permanent injunction so as to restrain the petitioner from alienating House No.1182/1, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh and Booth No.138, Shastri Market, Near Kiran Cinema, Sector 22, Chandigarh. She had averred therein that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 6.3.1989 Civil Revision No.4754 of 2008 -2- in a temple at Chandigarh. They were blessed with a child on 14.12.1989. However, the petitioner had two daughters and one son from his earlier marriage. He started harassing the respondent, besides persuading her to sell her jewellery for investing in commercial property. She sold her jewellery and proceeds of the same were utilized for purchasing the suit property. The petitioner, however, started threatening to alienate the suit property. The petitioner denied the claim of the respondent and asserted that he had exclusive legal right over the suit property. He even denied his marriage with the respondent. Issues were framed on 21.7.2002. The respondent examined her entire evidence. Her evidence was finally closed by order on 14.10.2003. When asked to lead his evidence, the petitioner did not do so. He filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which was dismissed with costs by learned trial Court on 9.12.2004. One more opportunity was granted to him to conclude his evidence. He filed a revision before this Court against order dated 9.12.2004 but withdrew the same later-on. Thereafter, instead of leading his evidence, he filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code, which was also dismissed with costs by learned trial Court on 6.10.2005. Still, he was granted another opportunity by learned trial Court to conclude his evidence. Instead of leading his evidence, he again chose to file another application under Order 14 of the Code for framing of additional issues, but his application was dismissed on 22.12.2005. The matter was Civil Revision No.4754 of 2008 -3- adjourned by learned trial Court to 13.1.2006 to enable the petitioner to conclude his evidence. Even on the said date, the petitioner did not lead his evidence, but moved an application under Order 17 of the Code for adjourning the case sine-die on the ground that he was suffering from psychiatric disease and was of unsound mind. Vide order dated 23.2.2006, this application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned trial Court by holding that he was not of unsound mind for the purpose of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code. Instead of concluding his evidence, the petitioner filed an application for adjournment of the case on medical grounds, which was dismissed by learned trial Court on 10.2.2007. When the petitioner did not examine any evidence, learned trial Court passed an order on 20.7.2007 closing his evidence by order. The matter then remained pending for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. Instead of arguing the matter, the petitioner chose to file an application under Section 32 of the Code on 1.10.2007, which had been dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It is apparent that the petitioner is bent upon to harass the respondent. Suit filed by the respondent pertains to the year 1996. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, learned trial Court was justified in concluding that the sole motive of the petitioner was to delay the conclusion of the case. Almost for similar relief, the petitioner had earlier filed an application on 13.1.2006 under Order XVII of the Code when he sought adjournment of the case sine-die. Vide order dated 23.2.2006, learned trial Court held that the petitioner was not of unsound mind. Civil Revision No.4754 of 2008 -4- The case is at the stage of recording of petitioner's evidence since 14.10.2003, when the evidence of the respondent was closed. A period of about five years has elapsed since then. The petitioner wants to delay the trial on one pretext or the other. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 32 of the Code was dismissed. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. September 16, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE