CR No. 4621 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4621 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Krishna Devi w/o Late Sh. Roop Lal, r/o 72, Kirti Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Daljit Kaur w/o Parbhjit Singh; 2. Prabhjit Singh s/o Sardul Singh; both r/o 72, Kirti Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 20.04.09, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, vide which, it closed the evidence of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, filed a suit for possession, on the basis of title of plot marked as ABCDE, measuring 4 marlas 33 CR No. 4621 of 2009 2 sq. ft., which is part and parcel of plot, measuring 13 marlas 46 sq. ft., bearing No. 72, situated in the area of Kirti Nagar Ladowali Road, Jalandhar, after removal of illegal construction, shown in red colour, in the plan, and fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. 3. Since the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, failed to produce the evidence, despite granting a number of opportunities, left with no other alternative, the trial Court, closed the evidence, vide order dated 20.04.09, and adjourned the case, for the evidence of the defendants. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, no doubt, last and final opportunity, was granted to the plaintiff/revision- petitioner, but on account of the circumstances beyond her control, she could not produce any evidence. He further submitted that the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was, thus, condemned unheard. He further submitted that the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was a lady of 70 years, and was undergoing medical treatment from New Ruby Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar. He further submitted that on 20.04.09, the brother-in- law of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, expired, and, therefore, she could not appear. He further submitted that the order, closing the evidence of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was very harsh, which caused injustice to her. Accordingly, the prayer, was made, that the order, being illegal be set aside, and sufficient opportunity be granted CR No. 4621 of 2009 3 to the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to lead her evidence. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident from the order impugned dated 20.04.09, that for the first time, the case, was adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff for 22.08.07. Thereafter, a number of opportunities, were granted to the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to produce, and conclude her evidence. Even last and final opportunity, was granted, to the plaintiff/revision- petitioner, to produce, and conclude her evidence, on 20.04.09, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. On that day, neither any witness, on behalf of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was present, nor the cost was paid. There is nothing in the order impugned that any request was made by the Counsel for the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, that the plaintiff, could not appear, in the Court, on account of some death, in her family, or on account of her illness. Had such a request been made, that must have been recorded by the trial Court, in the order itself. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was granted sufficient opportunities, to lead and conclude her evidence. She was also cautioned by giving her last and final opportunity, and imposing cost upon her, that she would not be granted any other opportunity, if she failed to lead and conclude her evidence after 20.04.09. It was not that all of a sudden, the evidence of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was closed. However, the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was not at all CR No. 4621 of 2009 4 diligent enough, in producing and concluding her evidence, during the period of 1 ½ years. Thus, no alternative was left with the Court, than to close her evidence. It could not be said that the plaintiff/revision- petitioner, was condemned unheard. The order dated 20.04.09, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 18.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE