Civil Revision No. 3327 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3327 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Dr. Satvir Singh Mann .. Petitioner v. The Haryana Financial Corporation and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is before this court challenging the orders dated 9.1.2010 and 1.5.2010, passed by the learned court below, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking a direction to the respondents for supply of certain documents and for framing of additional issues respectively. The little facts, which are available on record, show that the case has a checkered history. The suit in the present case was filed way back in the year 1993, in which the issues were framed on 11.1.1999, but the case is still at the stage of plaintiff's evidence and even thereafter what could be gathered is that on account of filing of application after application by the petitioner-plaintiff, the trial is not proceeding. Though a single petition challenging two orders, namely, rejecting the petitioner's prayer seeking a direction to the respondents-defendants for production of various documents and second rejecting his application for framing of additional issues, cannot be entertained, however, still finding the petition to be totally misconceived and a device to delay the proceedings, this court is proceeding to consider the same on merits. As far as application filed for direction to the respondents-defendants for production of documents is concerned, no exception can be made to the order passed, as the roving enquiry which the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking to make, cannot be permitted as the documents sought to be produced by the respondents- defendants, had not been referred to or relied upon by the respondents-defendants in their written statement. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and prove the case set up by him. The relevancy of the documents with the case set up by the petitioner-plaintiff could not be justified, as has rightly been observed by the Civil Revision No. 3327 of 2010 [2] learned court below. The effort of the petitioner-plaintiff is only to delay the proceedings. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the application. As far as the order seeking to frame additional issue is concerned, in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff way back in the year 1993, the issues were framed on 11.1.1999 and it was specifically recorded by the learned court below at the time of framing of issues that no other issue was claimed by the parties. More than a decade thereafter, the application was sought to be filed for framing of additional issue, which can just be opined to be a device to delay the proceedings. Even that application has rightly been rejected by the learned court below. Considering the conduct of the petitioner-plaintiff, where he had been able to delay the disposal of the suit for the last 17 years, the learned court below is directed to conclude the trial positively by the end of October, 2010. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.5.2010 mk