IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.250 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.01.2011 **** Ronki Ram . . . . Petitioner Versus Sham Lal Jain . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2010 by which evidence of petitioner has been ordered to be closed. From the perusal of the record, I have found that number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence but he failed to do so. The impugned order was passed on 21.12.2010 and the case was adjourned to 05.01.2011 for rebuttal evidence and arguments. The present revision petition is filed on 10.01.2011 whereas in the meantime, on 05.01.2011, the learned trial Court had adjourned the case for 21.1.2011. In fact, the petitioner is totally casual in his approach in contesting this litigation inasmuch as he did not lead evidence despite various opportunities were granted to him and when the impugned order was passed, the same has been challenged after the passing of another order by the learned Rent Controller on 05.01.2011. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JANUARY 19, 2011 JUDGE Vivek