IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 569 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.2.2009 M/s Madan Lal Suraj Parkash and Company ....Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated August 20, 2007, passed by the learned Court below whereby the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was closed by order of the Court. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief on July 24, 2001. After framing of issues, as is evident from the record, the first date on which the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was recorded was August 28, 2002. Thereafter, as is mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioner/plaintiff was granted as many as 14 opportunities for leading his entire evidence including last opportunity, but on account of his failure the evidence was closed by order of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 14 effective opportunities as is mentioned in the impugned order on three occasions the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the defendants. So, it is only 11 opportunities, which were granted. The prayer is that though there is lapse on part of the petitioner/plaintiff, one opportunity be granted may be even on payment of costs to enable the petitioner to conclude his evidence on the date to be fixed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The suit was filed way back on July 24, 2001. As is evident from order dated August 28, 2002 one of the PW was present in the Court, meaning thereby the evidence of the petitioner started thereafter. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is taken, 11 opportunities were granted to him for completing his evidence. A perusal of the various orders placed on the record by the petitioners shows that on number of hearings no evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was present. On August 23, 2005, on request of petitioner/plaintiff, adjournment was given for completing evidence on his own C.R. No. 569 of 2009 (O&M) -2- responsibility. Still, the evidence was not led. Again number of adjournments were granted for completing evidence on the risk and responsibility of the petitioner/plaintiff, but effective steps were not taken. On November 24, 2006, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter also the case was adjourned three times but the evidence was not completed and ultimately the Court on August 20, 2007 finding no merit in the request of the petitioner/plaintiff for granting further opportunity for completing his evidence closed the same by order of the Court. The order passed by the Court is sought to be challenged before this Court more than one year and five months after the same was passed. Evidence of defendant has been completed in the meantime and the case is now fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he deserves any further opportunity to lead his evidence. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 2.2.2009 JUDGE Reema