C.R.No.2741 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2741 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.4.2011 Gurdev Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Lakha Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar whereby his evidence has been closed by order. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.819 dated 20.12.2008 for possession to the extent of his half share regarding the land described in the head note of the plaint. Despite availing sufficient opportunities, no witness was produced by the plaintiff, hence his evidence was closed vide the impugned order and the case was adjourned to 18.11.2010 for evidence of the defendants, hence the present petition. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the counsel for the plaintiff was occupied in performing the rituals of Ist Death Anniversary of his mother and, therefore, an adjournment was requested by the proxy counsel but the learned trial Court instead of adjourning the matter has closed the evidence of the plaintiff resulting into miscarriage of justice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing C.R.No.2741 of 2011 #2# the paper book, this court is not persuaded with the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the suit was filed on 20.12.2008 and on the basis of pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 1.6.2009 and the case was adjourned to 24.7.2009 for evidence of the plaintiff and the learned trial Court granted various opportunities to the plaintiff-petitioner to conclude his evidence on 24.7.2009, 19.9.2009, 12.12.2009, 3.2.2010, 12.4.2010, 20.5.2010 and 29.7.2010. On 29.7.2010, the learned counsel for the plaintiff himself suffered a statement that he will conclude his entire evidence on the next date of hearing failing which the same may be deemed to be closed and in those circumstances, case was adjourned to 13.9.2010 as a last opportunity subject to payment of Rs.100/- as costs. On 13.9.2010, neither costs were paid nor remaining witnesses were examined and thus the learned trial Court has rightly closed the evidence while passing the impugned order. It seems that the plaintiff is unnecessarily delaying the matter on one pretext or the other by seeking unnecessary adjournments and he is either not seriously interested to pursue the matter or he has no witness to be examined at all. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with the impugned order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. April 27, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE