Civil Revision No.1341 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.1341 of 2011 (O & M ) Bakshish Singh ….Petitioner Versus Kanwaljit Singh 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. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. MOHINDER PAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby his prayer for leading additional evidence in a suit filed by him for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 29.11.2003 in respect of the suit land, for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land and in the alternative for Civil Revision No.1341 of 2011 (O & M ) recovery of earnest money along with damages was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner 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. The trial Court, upon the pleadings of the parties, had framed issues on 9.9.2005 and on 19.12.2007. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 17.12.2009. The evidence of the defendants had been closed on 28.8.2010. On 25.8.2010, the plaintiff-petitioner had filed an application for examining an expert witness, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 24.9.2010. Against the order dated 24.9.2010, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court, which was dismissed on 14.10.2010. It was under these circumstances that the trial Court observed that the plaintiff-petitioner was adopting dilly dallying tactics to delay the disposal of the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the year 2004. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended the pleadings in the year 2006. Reply to the amended plaint was filed by defendant-respondent No.2 on 19.11.2007. The issue involved between the parties, on the basis of the pleadings, was regarding the execution of agreement dated 29.11.2003 and agreement dated 30.6.2003. Plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1, in order to defeat his right, prepared an ante dated agreement dated 30.6.2003 in favour of defendant-respondent No.2 and that the plaintiff was bona fide purchaser of the suit land from defendant-respondent No.1 as per agreement to sell dated 29.11.2003. By way of additional evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to produce on record certain documents to show that the conduct of the Stamp Vendor from whom stamp paper (s) had been purchased by the defendants for executing agreement dated 30.6.2003 was doubtful as some action had been taken against him by Civil Revision No.1341 of 2011 (O & M ) the District Collector in the year 2010. I will refrain from making any comments on this aspect of the matter lest it may influence the trial Court at the time of finally deciding the suit. The trial Court, of course, will consider the entire evidence led by the parties in respect of genuineness or otherwise of both the agreements, stated above, before finally deciding the suit. However, the parties cannot be allowed to indefinitely prolong the trial of the suit for one reason or the other. The trial Court was, thus, justified in declining the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for leading additional evidence when both the parties had closed their evidence and the matter was at its final stage. Dismissed. Dated: February 25, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE