CIVIL REVISION NO.967 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 15, 2008 M/s Ganpat Ram Anil Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Laxmi Narain Garg ....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. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through this order, Civil Revision Nos.967 of 2008 (M/s Ganpat Ram Anil Kumar Vs. Laxmi Narain Garg), 968 of 2008 (M/s Ashish Trading Co. Vs. Sunita Garg) and 969 of 2008 (M/s Ashish Trading Co. Vs. Vanita Garg) are being disposed of. The evidence of the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, has been closed by an order dated 1.9.2007. His prayer for CIVIL REVISION NO.967 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: recall of the order was also declined through a detailed order dated 23.1.2008. The petitioners have impugned both the orders through the present revision petitions. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,60,300/- as principal and Rs.16,38,800/- as interest upto 31.5.2001. Though the impugned orders are passed in the year 2007-08, yet case is in progress from the year 2001. No witness was found present on 1.9.2007, though the petitioner had been apprised to bring the entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility, while adjourning the case on 21.7.2007 for 1.9.2007. Earlier, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 28.5.2005 and case was adjourned for petitioner-defendant's evidence on 10.9.2005. The petitioner availed number of opportunities and his evidence was then closed by an order dated 3.4.2006. The case was adjourned to 9.5.2006 for rebuttal evidence. In the meantime, an application was moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but was dismissed on 10.10.2006. Inadvertently, the case was fixed for defendant's evidence at his own risk and responsibility vide order dated 18.11.2006. The case was then adjourned to 27.1.2007, when an application under order 14 Rule 5 CPC was filed. This application was allowed and the case was again fixed for 10.3.2007 for defendant's evidence at his own responsibility. Still, no evidence was adduced and the case was adjourned to 28.4.2007. On this date, the evidence of one defence witness was recorded and the petitioner- defendant was given opportunity to adduce evidence by adjourning CIVIL REVISION NO.967 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: the case to 21.7.2007 being a last opportunity. On this date, the counsel appearing for the petitioner made a statement that he will serve the witnesses for the next date at his own responsibility and the case was accordingly adjourned. No witness, however, came present on 1.9.2007, when the impugned order is made. It is seen that more than adequate and required opportunities have been given to the petitioner to lead his evidence but he has made no sincere efforts to conclude his evidence. Once the order was made for closing the evidence of the petitioner, he moved an application for recall of the order on 20.10.2007. This application is now rejected on 23.1.2008. While rejecting this application, the trial Court has gone into the entire background of the case to observe that the petitioner has not left any stone unturned in order to prolong the case. The case has become seven years old because of the tactics adopted by the petitioner. The issues in this case were framed on 1.11.2003. Reference is made to the background showing how the case was adjourned on various dates on one pretext or the other. In between, an application for amendment was also made under order 6 Rule 17 CPC. No witness could be examined on different dates like 10.8.2005, 7.1.2006 and 3.2.2006. An application for re-examination of one PW was also moved under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, which was dismissed on 1.3.2006. Application, seeking amendment of the written statement was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and then followed various other applications and adjournments that were sought for CIVIL REVISION NO.967 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: examination of witnesses as noted above. The trial Court has observed that the petitioner was waiting for his evidence to be closed so that he may move an application for recall of the order. He still did not impugn the order by filing revision, which he has now ultimately done. It is, thus, noticed that the conduct of the petitioner is not above board. While moving the application, the petitioner has filed an affidavit, giving evidence of proposed witnesses without having any permission to lead evidence. The Court has, thus, found that he did not deserve any leniency and has dismissed his application for recalling of the order, closing the evidence. The background and the conduct, as noted and appreciated by the Trial Court, would dissuade me from interfering in these cases. The courts can not be allowed to be a silent spectator to the tactics adopted by parties like the petitioner in prolonging the proceedings. The case is already seven years old. It is still at the stage of recording of evidence. The fact that additional issues were framed and the amendment of the written statement was allowed, would not be a reason enough to show any extra consideration to the petitioner. Even thereafter, he is given sufficient opportunities to adduce his evidence but has failed to do so. He sought adjournment to bring the witnesses at his own risk and responsibility but still could not produce any witness. The submission by the counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses could not be produced as they had gone out of station, would not be a valid justification to interfere in the impugned order. It was the responsibility of the petitioner to bring the CIVIL REVISION NO.967 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: witnesses, in which he failed. I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. February 15 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE