C.R.No.289 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.289 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.08.2011 Akali Times Trust (Regd.) ….Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mrs. J.J. Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar whereby an application for summoning the witnesses on its behalf in rebuttal has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.111 dated 30.12.2002 for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent No.1 to repair and restore the Gali as it existed on 11.12.2002 before its illegal demolition by the defendants as described in the head note of the plaint and to pay compensation as claimed and further with a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering into the portion of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, an application for summoning the witnesses on behalf of the C.R.No.289 of 2010 #2# plaintiff-petitioner in rebuttal was filed and after hearing both the sides, the same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further argued that in order to prove the demolition carried out by defendant No.1 from 9.12.2002 to 16.12.2002, the summoning and production of record by way of rebuttal evidence is very much necessary. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants- respondents has fully supported the impugned order of the learned trial Court and argued that the application for summoning the rebuttal evidence has been filed just to prolong the proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. It is not in dispute that civil suit was filed way back on 30.12.2002 and the onus to prove all the issues was upon the plaintiff- petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner was very much aware about his case regarding the alleged demolition carried out by the Municipal Corporation- respondent No.1 from the period 9.12.2002 to 16.12.2002 and thus it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-petitioner to prove its case in affirmative by leading the cogent evidence but failed to do so at the relevant time. Case is pending for the last more than 9 years and the present application has been filed at such a belated stage just to prolong the proceedings. Even from the perusal of zimni order, it reveals that the C.R.No.289 of 2010 #3# plaintiff-petitioner has been afforded number of opportunities for leading his rebuttal evidence by the learned trial Court on 27.5.2008, 11.6.2008, 17.12.2008, 27.1.2009, 21.3.2009, 5.8.2009, 19.8.2009, 4.9.2009 but failed to conclude the same. Learned trial Court, in my opinion, has rightly passed the impugned order. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. August 10, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE