Civil Revision No. 6194 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6194 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 5th, 2011 Balkar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Pushpa Rani and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Jasmer Rozera, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This revision petition has been brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by order of the court. The impugned order reveals that previous costs were not paid. Two witnesses, namely, Balkar Singh and Bharti, Clerk, were present and cross examination of Balkar Singh had been concluded, while statement of Bharti had been recorded. It has been noticed thereafter that no other witness of the plaintiff is present. Perusal of the file revealed to the trial court that the plaintiff had availed several opportunities including last Civil Revision No. 6194 of 2011 2 .. opportunities. Learned trial court found no reason to adjourn the case for further evidence of the plaintiff in view of the aforesaid circumstances and, consequently, closed the evidence of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Jasmer Rozera, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one more opportunity would be sufficient to the plaintiff to lead his evidence and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and granting one opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Several opportunities including last opportunities would mean that the plaintiff had availed many opportunities and on more than one occasion, it was mentioned that it would be the last opportunity to produce the evidence. The opportunity for 19.8.2011 had been granted subject to payment of costs. It is mentioned in the order and not challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner before me that previous costs were not paid. On non-payment of previous costs, learned trial court should not have even allowed further evidence to have been recorded in the shape of statement of Balkar Singh and Bharti. No reason appears in the revision petition as to why the costs were not paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner also has nothing to say on this aspect. In these circumstances, learned trial court had no Civil Revision No. 6194 of 2011 3 .. other alternative but to close the evidence of the plaintiff and I find no good ground to hold the impugned order to be bad in any manner. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the revision petition or appearing from the impugned order as to what more evidence was to be led by the plaintiff. The same is not even specified by learned counsel for the petitioner before me. In the absence of the same, the plaintiff cannot be held to be serious about prosecuting his claim and learned trial court had been justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiff by way of the impugned order. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and finding no merit in the revision petition, dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 5th, 2011 som