IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.10.2010 C.R.No.5237 of 2010 Kamal Kishore ...Petitioner Versus Ram Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 10.06.2010, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by an order. When the revision petition came up for hearing on 23.08.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to produce interim orders passed in the suit from 04.01.2003 i.e. the date of framing of issues. The case was adjourned to 30.08.2010 and 06.09.2010. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certain interim orders, but the said orders are of the year 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced all the interim orders from the date of framing of issues to find out whether the petitioner was diligently prosecuting his suit for specific performance. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time to produce all the interim orders. It was also argued that an application for grant of ad interim injunction was decided in the year 2008 and, therefore, the petitioner could not lead his evidence prior thereto. C.R.No.5237 of 2010 I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner either for grant of more time or that decision on the application for ad interim injunction prevented the plaintiff to lead his evidence. The learned trial Court has passed an impugned order on 10.06.2010 i.e. after granting opportunities to the plaintiff for seven years. Even, the present revision petition has not been prosecuted diligently. The impugned order was passed on 10.06.2010, but the revision was filed only in the month of August, 2010. Still further, the interim orders passed from the date of framing of issues have not been produced even though almost two months have been availed by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, it is apparent that the plaintiff was not diligently prosecuting his suit for specific performance, which is supported by his conduct after the impugned order was passed as well. The argument that the application for ad interim injunction prevented the plaintiff to lead his evidence is again not tenable. The leading of evidence is not dependent upon the decision of an ad interim injunction application. The suit for specific performance was filed in the year 2002. The issues were framed on 04.01.2003, whereas the order of closing of evidence has been passed 7 years later on 10.06.2010. Therefore, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for further indulgence in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 25.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2