IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5594 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.9.2011 Harpeet Kaur. ....... Petitioner. Versus Dalbir Singh and others. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK .... Present: Shri Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is brought by Harpeet Kaur, legal representative of the deceased plaintiff Smt.Tej Kaur for setting aside the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna whereby the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by order of the court. The prayer is made for grant of one opportunity to the plaintiff to lead her evidence. The suit brought by Smt.Tej Kaur had been against her C.R.No.5594 of 2011 -2- .... husband Sardara Singh as well as son and daughter-in-law of his brother's son Mohinder Singh. The order dated 27.5.2011 challenged by way of this revision petition has been passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) closing the evidence of the plaintiff. It is mentioned clearly in the said order that issues were framed in this case on 29.4.2006 and till the date of passing of the impugned order, it was the plaintiff, predecessor of the petitioner, who was availing opportunities to lead her evidence. Learned trial court found no justification for grant of further opportunity to the plaintiff when the plaintiff failed to bring evidence despite last opportunity given to her for her evidence. I have heard Shri Sunil Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit had been filed by Tej Kaur, who was aged 85 years. According to him, Sardara Singh, her husband had been under the influence of respondents no. 1 and 2 and under their influence, he had stopped caring for the plaintiff and had given the entire land to them. He has submitted that if further opportunity is not given to the plaintiff to produce evidence, the fate of the plaintiff would be sealed. The plaintiff took more than five years to lead her evidence. It is an undeniable fact that she availed numerous C.R.No.5594 of 2011 -3- .... opportunities to lead her evidence. Despite last opportunity, she did not move with the required speed and finding no justification for grant of further opportunity, learned trial court closed the evidence. I fail to find any justifiable reason for the plaintiff not to produce her evidence within a period of five years. In paragraph 17 of the revision petition, it is simply submitted that the petitioner- plaintiff could not produce evidence as per the direction of learned trial court only due to unavoidable circumstances of the petitioner - plaintiff. What were those unavoidable circumstances and as to whether the same were compelling enough to prevent the plaintiff from bringing her evidence were required to be mentioned in the revision petition, which is not done in this case. In these circumstances, I find no reason to say that the order passed by learned trial court is illegal. The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed. September 15 ,2011 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) “SCM” JUDGE