CR No.6939 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6939 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:08.11.2010. Bachan Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Jaswinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Trial Court dated 18.09.2010 by which evidence of the defendants has been ordered to be closed. In brief, the petitioners are defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction alleging therein that the plaintiff and defendants are brothers and sisters. Plaintiff and defendant No.5 are the daughters of Niranjan Singh and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are his sons. Niranjan Singh had died in the year 1977 and being his natural heir, she was entitled to succeed to 1/4th share of the property of Niranjan Singh, but because of an illegal mutation No.1335 she has been deprived of her right. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 3, it was alleged that the plaintiff is the daughter of Niranjan Singh and Swaran Kaur, but after the death of Swaran Kaur, she was adoptive by the real sister of Niranjan Singh, namely Pritam Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh and has been transplanted to the family of the adoptive parents, therefore, she has no right in the property left by Niranjan Singh. In this case, the evidence of defendants was closed vide order dated 18.09.2010 on the ground that after the repeated opportunities, defendants have failed to produce their evidence. CR No.6939 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ******* Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants may be given one more opportunity to lead their entire evidence. It was alleged that the plaintiff has been given various opportunities, whereas the defendants have been given 5 opportunities, but besides that learned counsel for the petitioners could not find fault with the impugned order. On 21.10.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners had sought adjournment in order to place on record the zimni orders passed by the learned Trial Court. The said zimni orders, which were placed on record along CM No.28025-CII of 2010, read as under: - “Order dated 05.05.2010 No DW is present. Adjournment sought, which is not opposed. Heard, allowed. Now to come up on 02.06.2010 for evidence of the defendant at own responsibility. Order dated 02.06.2010 No DW is present. Adjournment sought, which is not opposed. Heard, allowed. Now to come up on 28.07.2010 for evidence of the defendant at own responsibility. Order dated 28.07.2010 No DW is present. Adjournment sought, which is not opposed. Heard, allowed. Now to come up on 11.08.2010 for evidence of the defendant at own responsibility. Order dated 11.08.2010 No DW is present. Adjournment sought, which is not opposed. Heard, allowed. Now to come up on 01.09.2010 for defendant evidence at own responsibility. It shall be the last opportunity, subject to cost of `100/- to be deposited in Legal Aid Fund. Order dated 01.09.2010 CR No.6939 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ******* Previous cost paid. DW-1 is present, examined and discharged. Ld. counsel for the defendant has made a statement. In view of his statement, the case is adjourned to 18.09.2010 for defendant evidence at own responsibility, subject to cost of `200/- to be deposited in Legal Aid Fund.” Order dated 18.09.2010 Previous cost paid. No DW is present. Ld. counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment. Perusal of the file shows that in this case defendant has availed effective opportunities to lead the defendant evidence on 05.05.2010, 02.06.2010, 28.07.2010, 11.08.2010, 01.09.2010 and even today defendant has failed to adduce any evidence. Hence, request of Ld. counsel for the defendant for one more opportunity is hereby declined. Now the case is adjourned to 06.10.2010 for rebuttal evidence, if any and for arguments.” Normally, one opportunity is granted by this Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, but in the present case, the petitioners have not led their evidence despite sufficient last opportunities and the Court had to impose the costs repeatedly. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to set aside the impugned order of the learned Court below because the impugned order has been passed even after granting last opportunity. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. November 08, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE