Civil Revision NO. 5106 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision NO. 5106 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.9.2009 Sukhdeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus Upinder Sehgal and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 30.7.2009, whereby evidence of the defendants was closed as the defendants have not even paid costs of Rs.1000/-, which was imposed on the previous date while granting another opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence. A perusal of the interim orders passed by the trial Court shows that the case was fixed for the defendants' evidence on 17.9.2008. On 15.12.2008, the case was adjourned to 7.1.2009 for defendants' evidence subject to payment of Rs.200/- as costs. On 7.1.2009, the costs were paid but on request, again the case was adjourned for defendants' evidence to 14.1.2009. On the said date, counsel for the parties requested to explore the possibilities of compromise as defendant No.1, who is a lawyer has stated that he is ready to make the payment. Subsequently, the case was adjourned Civil Revision NO. 5106 of 2009 (2) to 3.2.2009. On 16.2.2009, the plaintiff agreed to receive a sum of Rs.11 lacs in full and final settlement of his claim, but the defendants sought time to make the payment. Thereafter, the payment was not made in spite of few adjournments granted to the defendants. The case was fixed then for the evidence of the defendants. On 13.6.2009, inspite of number of opportunities taken by the defendants, the evidence was not led, therefore, while adjourning the case to 22.7.2009, costs of Rs.500/- were imposed for permitting the defendants to lead their evidence. On 22.7.2009, the defendants have not led the evidence. On the said date, while adjourning the case to 30.7.2009 as a last opportunity to lead evidence, the learned trial Court imposed costs of Rs.1000/- on the defendants. But even then the evidence was not led on the aforesaid date i.e. 30.7.2009, which led to the passing of the impugned order. The conduct of the proceedings by the defendants shows that they are interested only in delaying the proceedings. It has also come on record that defendant No.1 is a lawyer, therefore, it is not expected of a lawyer to adopt delaying tactics even when he has agreed for a settlement at one point of time before the trial Court. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 08-09-2009 ds