C.R No. 6750 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 6750 of 2007 Decided On : 06.10.2009 Manmohan Joshi ...Petitioner versus Prem Chand Joshi ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 21.08.2007, whereby application for restoration of suit dismissed in default on 02.03.2004, was dismissed. The plaintiff has filed suit for possession on 01.10.1994 on the basis of title by sale deed against his brother. The suit was dismissed on 02.03.2004 when the plaintiff did not appear. An application for restoration was dismissed by the trial Court on 19.01.2006 on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to lead his evidence even though 35 effective opportunities were availed by him. Such order has been affirmed in appeal as well. C.R No. 6750 of 2007 -2- It is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that a separate suit filed by the defendant challenging the sale in favour of the plaintiff is pending in second appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that some time was taken by the plaintiff to lead his evidence for the reason that the matter remained pending for adjudication of an application filed by the defendant and that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he shall conclude his entire evidence and also suitably compensate the defendant for the delay in leading his evidence. The plaintiff is claiming possession on the basis of sale deed. Delay in leading his evidence is at his own part. Plaintiff is not gaining by not producing evidence. However, the fact remains that the proceedings in the Court cannot be adjourned on slight pretext. The proceedings before the Court have to be concluded expeditiously. Therefore, while the plaintiff was not to gain by delaying the proceedings but the fact that the plaintiff has not concluded his evidence inspite of numerous opportunities granted to the plaintiff, does not speak high of the plaintiff. However, the matter in respect of title of the plaintiff is already pending adjudication. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the petitioner is granted one opportunity to lead his entire evidence subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. If the petitioner fails to lead evidence on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court and to C.R No. 6750 of 2007 -3- pay the costs, his evidence shall be deemed to be closed. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 10.11.2009 on which date the plaintiff shall pay the costs of Rs.1000/-. On such payment alone, the Court shall fix a date for the plaintiff to lead his evidence. OCTOBER 06, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE