IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.242 of 2010 Date of decision : July 13, 2010 Harmehtab Singh Rarewala …Petitioner. Versus Jagteshwar Prit Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Matter is lingering on for the last several years. Issues were framed. Various opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to adduce evidence, which he failed to avail. His evidence was closed by the order of the Court. He came to this Court in revision. This Court allowed one opportunity. He failed to avail of that opportunity also. His evidence was again closed. He again came to this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the meanwhile, defendants adduced their evidence. This Court granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. Petitioner examined one witness and sought adjournment for adducing some more evidence. His prayer was declined, evidence was closed and the matter was listed Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… for arguments. The petitioner made an application, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of the Court to adduce evidence in rebuttal to rebut the evidence of the defendants-respondents, with respect to his counter claim. That application has been dismissed and the petitioner has again come to this Court, by filing the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The abovestated position suggests that the petitioner has been delaying the disposal of the case. Every time when his evidence is closed, he comes to this Court. Even after the closure of the evidence of the defendants, he was afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. In fact, one witness, whom he examined, after the passing of an order by this Court on his second Revision Petition, was only after the defendants had adduced their evidence. He had the opportunity, because of the order passed by this Court, in second Revision Petition, to adduce evidence, both in the affirmative and rebuttal, which he failed to avail. 4. Now the matter is stated to be listed for final hearing tomorrow, i.e. 14th July, 2010. Though the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence of the Court, because of his conduct, as pointed out above, still, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is granted to him to produce his entire evidence, in rebuttal, at his self-responsibility, on 20th July, 2010. The order is subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. It is made clear that in case the plaintiff fails to …3… adduce evidence in rebuttal, on the aforesaid date, trial Court shall close his evidence and hear the final arguments on that very day. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, having become infructuous. Copy dasti. July 13, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J