In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2532 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Ajay Kumar ......petitioner Versus Shamlat Patti Kushal Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate and Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Vide the impugned order dated 4.4.2011, the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in closing the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner. The petitioner had deposited the diet money and the summons sent to the witness had been received back unserved. The trial Court should have taken coercive method to effect service on the witness. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the interim order dated 9.3.2011, Annexure P-5, reveals that the case was listed for rebuttal evidence since Civil Revision No.2532 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 29.7.2010 and plaintiffs had already availed thirteen effective opportunities to conclude their evidence but had failed to do so. Last opportunity was granted to the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence on 4.4.2011. Despite the said order, plaintiffs failed to conclude their evidence on 4.4.2011. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the plaintiffs had already availed numerous opportunities to conclude their rebuttal evidence, learned trial Court had rightly closed the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs by order. The plaintiffs should have summoned their witness in time so that they could conclude their rebuttal evidence expeditiously. Moreover, during the course of arguments, learned counsel has failed to convince me that the witness sought to be examined was being examined by way of rebuttal evidence qua an issue regarding which burden of proof had been placed on the defendants. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 19, 2011 anita