IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2898 of 2009 Date of decision : 20.5.2009 Rakesh Gupta and others … Petitioners Versus Dina Nath Ranjolia, …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg. Present: Mr.D.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is defendants’ revision petition challenging the orders dated 25.8.2007 and 19.3.2009, whereby evidence of the defendants/ petitioners was closed by order and further application filed by the defendants/ petitioners for granting an opportunity to produce evidence, was dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, plaintiff- respondents filed civil suit against defendants/petitioners for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts regarding business transactions by the partnership firm. The defendants/petitioners contested the suit and filed written statement on 30.5.2000. Issues were framed on 5.12.2000 and the evidence of the plaintiff was completed on 24.12.2006, and thereafter, the matter remained pending before the trial Court for leading evidence of the defendants/ petitioners. The petitioners were granted as many as six opportunities, however, they failed to lead any evidence on their behalf. So much so, even the defendants/petitioners did not appear in support of their case and the trial Court, vide order dated 25.8.2007, closed the evidence of the defendants/petitioners. CR No.2898 of 2009 Instead of challenging the aforesaid order, by filing the revision petition in this Court, the defendants/petitioners filed an application before the trial Court praying for grant of one opportunity to the defendants/petitioners to produce the evidence. It is only after the decision of the application vide order dated 19.3.2009, wherein it was held that application for grant of one more opportunity to the defendants/petitioners, was not maintainable after closing of their evidence by order dated 25.8.2007, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition. No justification/explanation has been submitted by the petitioners for not approaching this Court immediately after passing the impugned order dated 25.8.2007 whereby their evidence was closed by order. No doubt, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice. However, in present case, from the facts as noticed above, it is clearly established that defendants/ petitioners are just wanting to prolong the trial of the suit. The defendants/ petitioners cannot be allowed to abuse the process of law. It may be noted here that, as a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated that application under Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioners before the trial Court for granting one more opportunity to lead evidence after closing of evidence by order dated 25.8.2009, was not maintainable. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Dismissed. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] Judge 20.05.2009 sd 2