Civil Revision No.1317 of 2011 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 25 , 2011. Civil Revision No.1317 of 2011 (O & M ) A.K. Syal and others ….Petitioners Versus Nationwide Investments Limited, Chandigarh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. MOHINDER PAL, J. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby their prayer for rejection of the plaint was declined and their evidence was closed. Civil Revision No.1317 of 2011 (O & M ) After hearing the learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners and going through the impugned order, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the application filed by the defendants- petitioners for rejection of the suit, they had taken the grounds which had already been taken by them in the written statement. All the pleas raised by the defendants in the written statement were considered by the trial Court at the time of framing of issues in the suit. No fault, therefore, can be found with the impugned order whereby the prayer of the defendants for rejection of the plaint was declined. Regarding closure of the evidence of the defendants vide the impugned order, it may be mentioned here that the defendants had availed ten opportunities including two last opportunities for conclusion of their evidence. It appears that the defendants-petitioners had been adopting dilly dallying tactics to delay the proceedings. The trial Court was, thus, justified in closing the evidence of the defendants-petitioner by an order of the Court. Dismissed. Dated: February 25, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE