IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.504 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 28, 2008 Kashmiri Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS Balbir Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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. K. S. Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Though the order impugned in this case is dated 22.12.2007 but the facts would show how the litigation has been stretched for so long by adopting one method or another. The permission to lead evidence has been declined through the impugned order but this is on a ground which carries a history. This application is filed by Bachni wife of defendant Kashmiri Lal. It is pleaded that the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint and, thus, the defendant wish to examine Dr.Nowsh Wadhawa of Meerut and Dr.Raj Kumar, Assistant Physician and CIVIL REVISION NO.504 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Cardiologist, Shastri Nagar, Meerut and a hand-writing expert. The prayer of the wife of the petitioner was opposed on the ground that such like application had earlier been dismissed by the Court and the evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed by an order dated 22.1.1999. It is further mentioned that the revision filed by the petitioner-defendant before this Court on the ground that he was mentally unsound and enquiry be held was also declined by this Court. It was then made out before this Court that application dated 30.9.1998 was filed before the trial Court and was pending for conducting the medical examination of the petitioner-defendant. This Court, however, found that no such application was available on the court file of the trial Court. The petitioner then prayed for grant of one opportunity to appear as his own witness, which request was allowed by this Court. Still, the petitioner-defendant did not make any statement before the Court and has now filed this application. Noticing these facts, the trial Court has noticed that the defendant is creating one obstacle or another in disposal of the suit. It is observed that earlier evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed on 22.1.1999 and thereafter he moved an application for leading additional evidence. This application was also dismissed, which was taken in revision before this Court. The proceedings were stayed and this revision petition was disposed of on 23.3.2001. It is seen from this order that the petitioner-defendant had raised a plea of he being mentally unsound and accordingly an application for conducting enquiry by the trial Court in regard to his mental condition CIVIL REVISION NO.504 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: was statedly pending, which was found factually incorrect. The petitioner-defendant was ultimately granted one opportunity to appear as his own witness. While granting this opportunity, this Court observed that in case he failed to appear on the next date, the trial Court would be at liberty to pass the necessary order. The petitioner- defendant, instead of appearing as a witness, moved an application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, which was rejected on 29.9.2003. Thereafter, he moved an application for summoning Dr.Nowsh Wadhawa and Dr.Raj Kumar on 17.12.2005. Having done so, the counsel for the petitioner-defendant again changed stance and stated on 19.12.2005 that he would not press the said application. An application for amendment of the plaint, in the meantime, is filed by the plaintiff, which is rejected. The plaintiff then filed a revision, which was allowed and amendment of the plaint was granted. The petitioner-defendant was again given an opportunity to produce evidence and then Smt.Bachni made a statement before the Court that no other witness could be produced and ultimately the evidence of the petitioner-defendant is closed by an order dated 19.10.2007. Still, Smt.Bachni has again moved an application for summoning Dr.Nowsh Wadhawa and Dr.Raj Kumar. The trial Court is fully justified in rejecting the prayer of Smt.Bachni on the ground that an application moved earlier was not pressed by the counsel for the defendant. The manner in which the defendant has moved one application after another, obviously shows that the aim of the CIVIL REVISION NO.504 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: defendant appears to be to prolong this litigation. The Court is justified in observing that Smt.Bachni is resorting to wasting the time of the Court by moving frivolous applications and has dismissed this application for leading additional evidence with costs of Rs.500/-. The facts, as narrated above, would be enough to say that no case of any interference is made out. This is high time that the move of the defendant to delay the proceedings is checked and in order to discourage moving such frivolous applications, it would be appropriate to dismiss this revision petition in limine with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner would deposit this cost before the learned trial Court. January 28,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE