IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.26 of 2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2008. Shri Balbir Singh Dhavan …..Petitioner -Versus- Sh.Ashok Kumar and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Kumar, counsel for R-2. Deepak Gupta, J(oral) This Revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Rohru dated 18.12.2006 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for placing on record a document which is the report of Medical Board dated 1.10.2003. It is not necessary to give detailed facts of the case. However, it is pertinent to mention that previously a Civil Suit had been field by the contesting respondents for possession of the suit land. In that suit the present petitioner took up the defence that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. This plea of the petitioner was rejected right up to the level of the Supreme Court and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents. Thereafter, another suit was filed by the petitioner out of which the present proceedings arise. In this suit a plea was raised that due to injuries sustained in an accident the petitioner had lost his memory and only remembered that he was in possession of the suit land and therefore instructed his counsel to take a plea that he was owner by way of adverse possession in the previous suit. This suit was contested. Issues were framed on 5.6.2003. In this suit the plea of the petitioner is that since he is a mortgagee in possession and 2 since the mortgage has not been redeemed he has become owner of the suit property by afflux of time. This suit has been going on for the last 5 years. The petitioner’s evidence has still to be recorded and I find from the record that already three opportunities have been given to the petitioner to lead his evidence. It is apparent that the petitioner is just trying to delay the matter by moving one application after another and not taking any steps to produce his evidence. Since the evidence of the petitioner is still to be recorded, I permit the petitioner to produce and prove on record the said document. However, it is made clear that it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to procure the presence of all the witnesses required to prove the document. He may take dasti summons to summon the witnesses and it will be his responsibility to ensure that dasti summons are served upon the witnesses. The petitioner shall not be granted more than two opportunities to lead evidence. Even if he files any application the learned trial Court shall continue to record the evidence and side by side decide the application but shall not give any further opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The evidence of the petitioner shall be recorded latest by 31st October, 2008. The Court thereafter shall give adequate opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence and decide the matter as early as possible and not later than 31st March, 2009. Admittedly, the petitioner was remiss in filing the application for 3 years. Therefore, he is burdened with costs of Rs.3000/-. The costs shall be paid by the petitioner to the contesting respondents before the learned trial Court on the next date. If the costs are not paid then the document will not be permitted to be produced on record. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 16th June, 2008. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. May 21, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge