Rattan Singh vs Rakesh And Others on 26 May, 2009

C.R. No. 3068 of 2009 (O&M)                                  1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                           C.R. No. 3068 of 2009 (O&M)
                                           Date of Decision: 26.5.2009

Rattan Singh                                           ....Petitioner

               Versus

Rakesh and others
                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:-      Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

RAJESH BINDAL J

                        ****

The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated April 2,
2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the
petitioner for permitting him to examine himself as PW and also place on record
some documentary evidence has been dismissed.

Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration to the effect that he is joint owner in possession of the suit land with
the proforma defendants. The suit was filed on October 22, 1998. The evidence
of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court on April 26, 2007. Thereafter,
application was filed before the learned Court below on November 5, 2007 for
permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to examine himself and also to place certain
documentary evidence on record. The application having been dismissed, the
petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date when
the evidence of the petitioner was closed the counsel who was representing the
petitioner was not well as he had undergone bye pass surgery. It was on that
account that the petitioner could not be examined and the left over evidence
could not be recorded and the petitioner being 77 years of age was also not
keeping good health. The submission is that in case one last opportunity is
granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date to be fixed.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any
merit in the submission made. If the petitioner/plaintiff could not complete his
evidence even after a decade of filing of suit, some end has to be put to the
proceedings. In the present case evidence of the petitioner was closed by order
of the Court on April 26, 2007 but that order was not challenged before any
Court, rather fresh application was filed for seeking examination of
plaintiff/petitioner as a witness and also to produce certain documentary
C.R. No. 3068 of 2009 (O&M) 2

evidence. Learned Court below has rightly dismissed the same as not
maintainable as no provision of law was cited under which such an application
could be entertained by the trial Court.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                                (RAJESH BINDAL)
26.5.2009                                             JUDGE
Reema