IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2059 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.3.2010 Hans Raj ....Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Nehra ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.7887-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.2059 of 2010 Concededly, as per own showing of the petitioner, his evidence commenced in 2005 and the same was closed in the year 2009. The petitioner did not adduce the evidence which he now wants to adduce despite the fact that 8 opportunities were granted to him and four years had passed regarding these opportunities. Now he wants to examine a witness after the closure of his evidence without showing any sufficient cause. Reliance has been placed on Gara Padmanabham v. Neti Narasimha Sastry, 2001(1) RCR (Civil) 609. I have considered the matter in its entirety. C.R.No.2059 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has failed to adduce his evidence in the affirmative despite the fact that the case is lingering on for the last 5 years, I am of the opinion that such laxity on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned. The plea that the witness is an advocate and is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case was known to the petitioner all throughout. He made no attempt to summon such a witness and therefore the indulgence qua summoning him as a witness at this belated stage cannot be permitted. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 29.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss