Civil Revision No. 4287 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4287 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.7.2011 Sumitra Devi …Petitioner Versus Gurdev Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.5.2011, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phul, whereby he rejected the application of petitioner for leading additional evidence. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.5.2011 reveals that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of suit property measuring 7 kanals 16 marlas, detail and description of which is given in head note of the plaint. She further sought permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff by setting aside the sale deed dated 17.6.2004, executed in favour of the defendants, along with mutation No. 9196, sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Phul. The trial Court held that the suit was filed on 9.6.2005. The plaintiff took long three years to conclude her evidence and vide a Civil Revision No. 4287 of 2011 2 statement made by her counsel, her evidence was closed on 10.8.2009. In paragraph No.2 of the impugned order, contention of the defendants has been noticed whereby they stated that for leading the evidence, the plaintiff had availed 21 opportunities. The case set out by the petitioner/plaintiff is that on 21.2.2009, she had summoned a Clerk from the Record Room, Bathinda, along with the file of case titled as “Gurdev Singh v. Gurnam Kaur” decided by the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Phul and for this purpose diet money was also deposited on 20.3.2009. It is stated that on 21.2.2009, the plaintiff had filed an application for admission and denial and on 10.8.2009 the factum of partition was admitted, yet the file has to be summoned to be exhibited in the evidence. The Court held that the application has been filed when the evidence of defendants is at the fag end. Today, learned counsel submits that the defendants have closed their evidence and the case is now fixed for plaintiff's evidence in rebuttal. This Court is of the view that since the suit was instituted in the year 2005 and in case the petitioner is permitted to lead additional evidence, it will cause unnecessary delay. Furthermore, closing the evidence by learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner on 10.8.2009 cannot be assumed to be inadvertence especially when on an application filed on 21.2.2009 the factum of partition has been admitted. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 18, 2011 “DK”