IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2011. M/s Oberoi Construction Co. through Sh.Yogeshwar Oberoi, Properietor. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus M/s Nitasha Construction through its Managing partner. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 28.07.2010 vide which application filed by present petitioner- plaintiff under Order 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for admission and denial of documents, was dismissed. CR No.5864 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, earlier an application for admission and denial of documents was filed on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff on 19.01.2009 and however, the same was, admittedly, dismissed by learned trial Court. The said order was not challenged by present petitioner-plaintiff. He moved another application for the same relief and however, the same has also been dismissed by learned trial Court by observing that already sufficient opportunities were availed by present petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and that application for admission and denial of documents were not filed at the appropriate stage. It has also been averred that, moreover, the documents are in possession of petitioner-plaintiff and that he could prove the same in his evidence. Moreover, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-defendant that evidence of both the parties has already been concluded in this case and the case is fixed for arguments. Hence, the documents must have been put to respondent-defendant in the cross-examination on behalf of petitioner- plaintiff for the purpose of admission and denial of the documents. In view of the subsequent development that evidence of both the parties has already been concluded, no further order is required to be passed in this revision petition. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) 2 CR No.5864 of 2010 September 28, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3