IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2278 of 2007 Date of Decision : April 11, 2008 Rajinder Parshad Puri ....Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. The appellant filed the suit on 27.1.2001. After the filing of the written statement by the respondents and a replication thereto by the appellant, learned trial Court framed the issues on 19.2.2002. The appellant availed of a number of opportunities, i.e. on 16.4.2002, 25.7.2002, 31.10.2002, 31.3.2003, 12.8.2003, 25.11.2003 and 10.1.2004 to examine his evidence but he failed to do so. On the last date, the trial Court gave another opportunity to the appellant by adjourning the case for 14.5.2004 with a direction that no further adjournment shall be granted but still he failed to examine his evidence. Two more adjournments were granted, both as last opportunities but the things remained where they were. The trial Regular Second Appeal No. 2278 of 2007 -2- Court once again adjourned the case to 23.11.2004 by terming it as last opportunity and imposed costs of Rs. 200/- upon the appellant. This did bear some fruit as on the adjourned date, i.e. 23.11.2004, the appellant tendered his affidavit by way of his examination-in-chief. The case was adjourned to 10.1.2005 for his cross-examination but on that day, the appellant could not be cross-examined as the Presiding Officer was busy attending monthly meeting. On the next date, the appellant did not appear in the Court and the proceedings were adjourned to 15.3.2005 and then to 23.3.2005. On the latter date, though the appellant came to the Court but on the request of respondents' counsel that he was indisposed, the case was adjourned to 6.6.2005. On the adjourned date as well as on 25.7.2005 and 8.8.2005, the appellant did not turn up inspite of the fact that on 6.6.2005 his counsel had undertaken to produce him on the next date and on 25.7.2005, the case was adjourned to 8.8.2005 with a clear direction that it shall be the last opportunity for him to appear for cross-examination or else his evidence would be closed by order. Under these circumstances, learned trial Court was justified in taking recourse to the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and closing the evidence of plaintiff-appellant. As the plaintiff-appellant had not appeared for his cross- examination, therefore, his affidavit Ex. PW1/A could not be read in Regular Second Appeal No. 2278 of 2007 -3- evidence. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed by the learned trial Court. Even the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Thereafter, present second appeal was filed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was pending at Patiala but the appellant was not posted at that place during those times. Moreover, appellant's son was suffering from a serious medical ailment and getting medical treatment at P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh. The appellant was undergoing enormous stress and strain and was, thus, unable to pursue the litigation. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned trial Court besides giving an opportunity to the appellant to lead his evidence. To a query from the Court, learned counsel for the appellant replied that during the pendency of the suit, the appellant had been attending to his official duties regularly except for the period when he was required to take his son for medical treatment. If the appellant could attend to his job, he could very well pursue the litigation by appearing himself in the Court and producing his evidence. He failed to do so. He did not appear initially for recording his statement. For the first time he appeared when adjournment was granted as last opportunity and that, too, after being Regular Second Appeal No. 2278 of 2007 -4- burdened with costs. Even after he tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, he did not appear for his cross-examination. So much so, he did not appear even when his counsel undertook to produce him or when it was ordered that his evidence would be closed by order on the next date. In all, the appellant took about three and a half years but did not produce his evidence. In the absence of any evidence, the plaintiff-appellant was rightly denied the relief prayed for by him. No case is made out for any interference in the findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) APRIL 11, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO