C.R. No. 3260 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3260 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.5.2010 Mangal Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Dalip Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. H.S.Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two civil revisions i.e. C.R. Nos. 3260 & 3223 of 2010, both titled Mangal Singh Versus Dalip Singh, as the common question of law and facts are involved. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dated 29.4.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Patiala, which reads as under :- “No reply filed to the application moved by defendant on 9.12.2009 for taking necessary action on account of alleged forged piece of evidence. Case has already become old pending since 2002 and sufficient opportunities have been availed by plaintiff for filing reply. Hence I proceed with the application awaiting reply of the plaintiff. C.R. No. 3260 of 2010 -2- Arguments heard and record seen. Defendant has moved application with the averments that the statement of plaintiff Dalip Singh appears to have been forged illegally and brought on the file. Said statement of plaintiff does not bear signatures of presiding officer and for this reason its certified copy has yet not been supplied. However, certain documents were produced in the chief examination of Dalip Singh, which bears the signatures of presiding officer. In this manner statement of plaintiff Dalip Singh is liable to be taken off the record alongwith the documents. These circumstances are warranting that a judicial notice be taken and appropriate direction be given. The lacuna left in the judicial records is affecting the interest of defendant. Hence it is prayed that the application be accepted and necessary orders be passed. Before coming to the application, it is relevant to mention here that suit has been filed in the year 2002 and after receiving the pleadings, issues were framed on 18.7.2003. Thereafter, plaintiff appeared as his own witness as PW1 and his chief examination was recorded on 23.9.2004 wherein he also tendered certain documents in the shape of agreement, jamabandi, application etc. His cross examination was deferred. Thereafter the plaintiff appeared on 30.7.2007 and his cross examination was recorded. On that date, no objection was raised by defendant against the chief examination of Dalip Singh PW1 as recorded on 23.9.2004. No C.R. No. 3260 of 2010 -3- doubt the cross examination recorded on 30.7.2007 is not signed by the then presiding officer, however, the corresponding zimny order is clearly mentioning that the statement of Dalip Singh was concluded and this zimny order has been signed by the then presiding officer. Now it does not lie in the mouth of defendant to say that no such cross examination was recorded on 30.7.2007. There is no other plausible reason for excluding the documents tendered by Dalip Singh PW1 in his chief examination as recorded on 23.9.2004. The application is misconceived and appears to have been moved in order to delay the disposal of suit. Consequently, the application is dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as final expression over the matter in dispute. Cross examination of Mangal Singh DW1 recorded and defendant tendered documents. Counsel for defendant sought adjournment for further evidence. Request considered and record perused. It is evident from the file that plaintiff's evidence was closed on 1.4.2009. Thereafter, defendant availed seven effective opportunities with the warning of last opportunity. No ground is made out to further adjourn the case for defendant evidence. It is closed by order. Case is now adjourned to receive plaintiff's evidence in rebuttal and for main arguments, for 17.5.2010.” The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the order on merit, and prays that in the interest of justice petitioner be granted one last opportunity to conclude his entire evidence, at his own risk and C.R. No. 3260 of 2010 -4- responsibility. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and without going into the merits of the case, this Court feels, that it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to conclude his entire evidence, at his own risk and responsibility, on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. “Ordered accordingly.” However, this shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs. Revision disposed off. 17.5.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE