R. S. A. No. 4812 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4812 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 21, 2010 Kanshi Ram .... Appellant Vs. Siri Pal and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. G. C. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 14309-C of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Kanshi Ram plaintiff having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. The appellant filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging himself to be in actual and physical cultivating possession of the suit land measuring 40 kanals since the time of his fore- fathers as gair mourusi tenant, but defendant no.2 Gram Panchayat, in collusion with revenue authorities, got its name entered in the column of R. S. A. No. 4812 of 2009 (O&M) 2 cultivation in Khata No.145 min., whereas Gram Panchayat is recorded to be owner of the entire land. Revenue entries regarding possession/cultivation of land of Khata No.145 min. have been challenged in the suit being wrong and illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 threatened to lease out the suit land to somebody else and defendant no.1 also threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte, whereas defendant no.2 contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant no.2 denied that the plaintiff is in possession of suit land. It was pleaded that the suit land vested in Gram Panchayat and defendant no.2 leased out the said land to defendant no.1, who was in possession thereof under defendant no.2. The plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief . The plaintiff also examined one Vinod as PW-2, who also tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief. However, both these witnesses did not thereafter step into the witness-box for their cross- examination on behalf of defendant no.2. Consequently, their examination- in-chief cannot be taken into consideration. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff has not led any other oral or documentary evidence. It is thus a case of `no evidence' and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by trial court i.e. by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2008. First appeal filed by the plaintiff has also rightly been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant may be granted one more opportunity for leading evidence. However, no such prayer has been made in the appeal, nor any application for additional evidence has been moved. Even otherwise, there is no justification for granting any further opportunity to the plaintiff for his evidence because perusal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court reveals that as many as 12 opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil R. S. A. No. 4812 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Procedure (in short – CPC), only three opportunities are required to be given to a party to lead evidence. It is correct that the said provision being rule of procedure may not be applied very strictly or with rigidity, but there has to be some limit to the number of opportunities to be granted to a party to lead evidence. In the instant case, the trial court has already shown over- indulgence to the plaintiff by granting as many as 12 opportunities for his evidence. Consequently, no justification for granting any more opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence is made out. In view of the aforesaid, I find that there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 21, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE