Civil Revision No. 2792 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2792 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.4.2010. Som Shankar ....Petitioner Versus Kirori Mal and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** Prayer in the present petition filed by the legal heir of deceased Duli Chand is for setting aside of the order dated May 21, 2009 closing the evidence of the petitioner and also order dated April 15, 2010 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence and seeking opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendants. Briefly the pleaded facts are that father of the petitioner, deceased- Duli Chand, along with performa respondents No. 7 to 12 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on June 22, 2001. During the pendency of suit Duli Chand died on September 22, 2004. It was only towards end of the year 2009 that the application was filed for impleading him as legal heir of deceased Duli Chand which was allowed on October 26, 2009. It is thereafter that the application for leading additional evidence was filed. Prior to that the evidence of the plaintiff already stood closed. It is aforesaid orders which are being impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was merely impleaded on October 26, 2009 as legal heir of deceased Duli Chand- plaintiff and the evidence of the plaintiff having been closed on May 21, 2009 after the death of plaintiff he should be granted opportunity to lead evidence and also cross-examine the witnesses produced by the defendants. He further submitted that earlier he was not in knowledge of the pendency of the litigation otherwise he would have taken effective steps to prosecute the same. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The suit by the father of the petitioner was filed on June 22, 2001. He died on September 22, 2004. But still the petitioner claimed that he did not have knowledge of the pendency of litigation regarding Civil Revision No. 2792 of 2010 2 the property in which the father of the petitioner was claiming some share. It is sought to be submitted that he came to know this fact only on August 1, 2009 when at Bus Stand Akoda one person told him that a suit filed by his father was pending with Sh. O.P. Yadav, Advocate Mahendergarh and thereafter the petitioner sought to take care of the suit. However, such explanation cannot possibly be accepted. This would prima-facie lead to conclusion that the petitioner/plaintiff was not taking care of his father and was not having the knowledge of any litigation initiated by him. It is only that after his death that the petitioner had shown any interest in the suit filed by his father way back in 2001. Once almost entire proceedings in the suit are over, I do not find any reason to set aside the orders passed by learned Court below, closing the evidence of the plaintiff and further for granting him opportunity to lead additional evidence. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 29.4.2010. JUDGE Reema