CR 18 of 2008. 27.3.2008 Present: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Sharma, counsel for the respondents. This revision petition has been filed by the State of H.P. through Collector, Shimla which is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 188-1 of 2004/07 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Theog. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has arbitrarily dismissed the two applications; one under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as ‘the Code’) praying for permission to place on record certain documents and another application under Section 151 of the Code for permission to examine witnesses in addition to the list of witnesses already filed. The learned trial Court dismissed the first application holding that the Court had allowed an application on similar grounds allowing permission to the plaintiff State to place on record copies of the inquiry reports etc. as prayed for. The present application filed was nothing but an abuse of process of law only to seek adjournment by a circuitous manner. On the second application, again the learned trial Court held that the record shows that the petitioner was moving one -2- application after the other without in any manner making a serious attempt to pursue the litigation which had been filed by it. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court has taken a hyper technical view of the matter and the order deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter remained listed for recording evidence of the plaintiff and more than eleven opportunities had been given as recorded in the order of the Court dated 3.3.2008. He submits that there is no error of law or jurisdiction and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed both the applications. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. The order of the trial Court dated 3.3.2008 shows that suit was listed for recording plaintiff’s evidence on 17.10.2006, 24.11.2006, 10.1.2007, 7.3.2007, 23.4.2007, 2.11.2007, 20.12.2007, 4.1.2008, 17.1.2008, 18.2.2008 and 3.3.2008. By no stretch of imagination can the order passed by the learned trial Court be described as one passed without jurisdiction. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s) shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. March 27, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.