IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1179 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 23 , 2010. Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 5.11.2009 whereby his evidence in affirmative was closed by order of the court in a reference under Sections 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of compensation between the parties. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that because of the attending circumstances, the petitioner could not present in the court on the date fixed and because of his absence, he failed to lead evidence with regard to his claim and, therefore, in the interest of justice, he should be granted adequate opportunity to enable him to lead his entire evidence. I have perused the various zimni orders passed in the case with the help of counsel for the petitioner. After framing the issues on 24.4.2009, the petitioner was given seven effective opportunities to lead his evidence, however, no evidence was present on any of the aforesaid dates. Not only this, after passing of the impugned order, the respondents have already completed their evidence and now the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments for 23.2.2010, i.e., today. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to justify the prayer of the petitioner for grant of further opportunity allowing him to lead evidence in the affirmative. In fact allowing the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence at this stage will essentially reopen the case for trial by both the parties. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. February 23, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge