CR No. 2925 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2925 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.5.2011. Ajit Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Attar Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.5.2004. Notice was issued to the defendants. On 3.4.2006, following issues were framed by the trial court:- “1. Whether the defendants No. 1 and 2 executed agreement to sell dated 8.5.2004 in plaintiff's favour and received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform part of agreement? OPP 3. If above issues proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of Specific Performance of the contract as prayed for? OPD CR No. 2925 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own acts, conduct? OPD 7. Relief.” Thereafter, the defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 3.1.2007 and the case was adjourned from time to time for exparte evidence of the plaintiffs. Vide the impugned order dated 4.11.2010, the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiff- petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence. Petitioner had paid the earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question. In case, the petitioner is not allowed to conclude his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “Court may grant time and adjourn hearing:- (1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be CR No. 2925 of 2011 (O&M) -3- recorded in writing: [Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit]” A perusal of the interim orders, reproduced in the grounds of petition, reveal that the case was fixed for exparte evidence of the plaintiffs for the first time on 21.4.2007 and thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for exparte evidence of the plaintiffs. Eleven effective opportunities were afforded to the plaintiffs to conclude their exparte evidence. Despite the said opportunities, the plaintiffs have failed to conclude their exparte evidence. The issues were framed in this case in April 2006 and the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed vide the impugned order dated 4.11.2010. The balance sale consideration, as directed by the trial court, was also not deposited by the plaintiffs. No ground for grant of further opportunity to the petitioner is made out, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. Comments of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) be called as to why the suit has not been disposed of till date although the exparte evidence of the plaintiffs was closed vide order dated 4.11.2010. (SABINA) JUDGE May 04, 2011 Gurpreet