Civil Revision No.2081 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2081 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:29.03.2010 Rakesh Kumar .... petitioner Versus Harnam Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.K.Sama,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. Petitioner, who is one of the defendants has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 01.10.2009 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Jalalabad, whereby evidence of the defendants was closed by order of the Court. As per the averments made in this petition, respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants i.e.petitioner and respondent Nos 2 to 6 restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. According to the petitioner the case was fixed for defendants' evidence on 01.10.2009 but due to harvesting season defendants could not produce their evidence. A request was made for adjournment. However, the trial Court closed the evidence, illegally. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner wants to produce jamabandi of the Civil Revision No.2081 of 2010 2 land as evidence in the suit and also wants to produce a receipt issued by the Provincial Government in his name and if the petitioner is not given one more opportunity to lead required evidence, he would suffer irreparable loss. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 01.10.2009 be set aside and petitioner be granted further opportunity to lead evidence. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the revision petition and the documents attached with this petition. Admittedly, the case is fixed for 30.03.2010 for arguments. Not only this, after passing of the impugned order dated 01.10.2009 petitioner moved an application before the trial Court allowing him another opportunity to lead evidence. While rejecting the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, the trial Court noticed that the petitioner had already availed five effective opportunities for leading his evidence and in the aforesaid application he had not disclosed the relevance of the evidence sought to be adduced as additional evidence. Thus, the aforesaid application for leading additional evidence was rejected. It may also be noticed that the petitioner has approached this Court after almost six months of passing the impugned order at the fag end of the case as the case is fixed for 30.03.2010 for final arguments. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 29.03.2010 neenu