R.S.A. No. 5033 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 5033 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 28.07.2011 Udham Singh .....Appellant Versus Nirmla and another .....Respondents Present:- Ms. Navdeep, Advocate for the appellant. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral) This is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been dismissed. It is admitted position that in this case the plaintiff and his three witnesses namely PW1 Satnam Singh, PW2 Rattan Singh and PW4 Sukhwinder Singh did not appear on the adjourned date for their cross- examination. The fact remains that all the plaintiff's witnesses including the plaintiff were not produced for cross-examination by the defendants and subsequently the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Thus, there is being no evidence on file, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant could not controvert this factual position. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgments, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant argued that after setting aside the R.S.A. No. 5033 of 2009 2 impugned order the case may be remanded and the appellant may be given one more opportunity to produce all his witnesses for cross-examination by the respondents. Now at this belated stage I am not inclined to accept this contention of learned counsel for remanding the matter for the said purpose. Thus, I do not find any merit in this appeal and no substantial question of law is involved. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) July 28, 2011 JUDGE reema