IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2728 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.6.2010 Girdawar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurdip Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.10491-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.2728 of 2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2010. He had sought an opportunity to recall one of the defendants' witnesses for further cross-examination. The prayer had been disallowed vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if only one opportunity is granted to him he shall do the needful in order to enhance the case of the petitioner who is plaintiff before the trial Court. The lapse to do the needful has been attributed to the counsel representing the petitioner in the trial Court. C.R.No.2728 of 2010 (O&M) -2- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order and am unable to accept the contention that has been raised before this Court. The evidence of the petitioner was closed in the affirmative on 1.10.2007 whereafter the respondents concluded their evidence and the matter was adjourned for leading evidence in rebuttal. The petitioner thereafter engaged another counsel on 14.10.2009 and subsequent thereto as many as 5 opportunities were availed of by him to lead evidence in rebuttal but he failed to do so. His evidence was thereafter closed on 19.1.2010 and the matter was fixed for arguments on 22.1.2010 when the instant application for recall of defendants' witnesses for further cross- examination had been moved which has now been declined by virtue of the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge because of the facts which have been detailed above. The petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendants which was indeed done and subsequent thereto he had another opportunity to adduce whatever evidence he desired by way of rebuttal evidence which opportunity was also wasted by him. The Court is of the opinion that certain finality has to be attributed to the proceedings before the trial court and the opportunity granted to a litigant cannot be expected as a measure of routine so as to warrant the recourse to exceptional procedure entailed in the Code of Civil Procedure which exceptional procedure can be availed of and granted by a Court only if the litigant displays due diligence. C.R.No.2728 of 2010 (O&M) -3- No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 28.6.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss