43 0 1 1 ele l Civil Revision N001793 of 2011 COSMI IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 March 141 1 2011 1 f Civil Revision N001793 of 2011 108M1 0 O Smt Resham Kaur and others Petitioners 27s C5 e 6 VERSUS en4a 2 Smte Babra Merry Nair Respondent 2 t SS CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL C Z 1 Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment7 2e To be referred to the Reportersor not7 3e Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest7 S7 f1 Presentl MrtvlSJoshi Advocate for the petitioners MOHINDER PAL J The defendantspetitionersare aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court wherebytheir prayer for allowing them to produceadditional evidence in a suit filed by the plaintiffe respondentfor declaration and consequentialrellef of permanent injunction in respectof the property in disputehas been declined Singh Gagan Preet 2013.01.15 10: 44 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 C7 41 2 ll Civil Revision No1793 of 2011 lOSM1e After hearing the Iearned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugnedorder I do not see any reason warranting interference in the impugnedorder passed by the Iearned trial Judge The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff 1 respondent in the year 2005 Issues arising out of the r pleadingsof the parties were framed by the trial Court on 0 0 211120050 In fact the plaintifrespondent had closed her evidence on 552009 after availing 15 effective opportunities I Thereafter the defendantsoetitioners availed eight effective Z opportunities till 9A 2010 However they did hot examine even a single witness and on 9A2010 the defendantswere given Iast and final opportunityto bring and conclude their evidence I The defendants thereafter producedthree witnesses but again t Z failed to produce these witnesses for crossexamination The Q3 defendants had by then availed thirteen effective opportunities 7 to conclude their evidence Ultimatelyevidence of the defendants Z was closed by an order of the trial Court on 28920100 rAW However on an applicationmoved by them the defendants were shown further indulgence by the trial Court and they were allowed to conclude their evidence subjectto payment of costs of Rs25001m Still the defendants continued adopting dilly dallying tactics to conciude their evidence for one reason or the other It deserves mentioning here that lll all seventeen eHective opportunities had been availed by the defendants to conclude their 1 evidence but they failed to completetheir evidence tn spite of that Instead they made prayer for Ieadingadditional evidence Singh Gagan Preet 2013.01.15 10: 44 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45 1 0 1 v3 Civil Revision Noa1793 of 2011 0SMIe which was declined by the trial Court by passing the impugned order The partiesto the suit cannot be allowed to deai the proceedings before the trial Court Itl the m8nner they Iike The Courts are to see that no party is made to suffer on account of 1 the wrong approachof one of the partiestothe suit The trial Court was under the circumstances justified in decliningthe prayer 0 0 of the defendants for Ieadingadditional evidence X Dismissed C9 2 Z 1 t i 0 MOHINDER PAL I Z March 2011 JUDGE 1 ak Z f Z 41 7 2 f3 1 5 4 97 14 Singh Gagan Preet 2013.01.15 10: 44 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document