A party's failure to pay ordered costs results in the mandatory dismissal of their defense, affirming the strict adherence to procedural compliance under the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition assails the order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar vide which the application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the suit properties in view of the Will dated 22.10.2006 having been executed by one Rupinder Singh. A further declaration was sought that judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar was illegal and that Will dated 09.10.2006 being relied upon by the present petitioner-defendant No.1 was a forged and fabricated document.

3. The suit was opposed by the defendants. The petitioner-defendant No.1 filed a written statement (Annexure P-1) in which a stand was taken that no Will dated 22.10.2006 had been executed by Rupinder Singh as he was not in India on the said date. Reliance was placed upon Will dated 09.10.2006 (mentioned as 06.10.2006 in the revision petition) stated to have been executed by Rupinder Singh in favour of the petitioner-defendant No.1.

4. A separate written statement was filed by the other defendants.

5. An application was purportedly moved by the present petitioner-defendant No.1 for leading additional evidence. The said application is also not on record of the present revision petition and the impugned order (Annexure P-4) shows that some record was sought to be produced to prove that the Will being relied upon by the respondent No.1-plaintiff was a forged and fabricated document and that actually Rupinder Singh was not present in India on 22.10.2006.

6. The application was resisted by respondent No.1-plaintiff in which it was averred that on two previous occasions, the present petitioner-defendant No.1 had approached this Court for examining attesting witnesses of the Will in his favour but despite imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/-respectively, no evidence was led.

7. The Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar dismissed the application after noticing all the aforementioned facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner have strenuously urged that the trial Court erred in rejecting the application. It has been submitted that they would restrict their claim only to exhibit the passport of Rupinder Singh, the original of which is already on record. It has been submitted that the document is essential for the just decision of the case and that the petitioner, who is 82 years old, erroneously engaged a counsel who was 93 years old as a result of which his case was not properly pursued. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was living abroad as a result of which he could not effectively pursue his case. It has been submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to prove the passport of Rupinder Singh in accordance with law.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondents No.1(a) to 1(c) has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. It has been submitted that the petitioner has abused the process of law and under the circumstances, does not deserve to be granted any relief.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

12. During the course of arguments, the application moved before the trial Court for additional evidence and the reply submitted thereto has duly produced by learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal.

13. The suit was filed as far back as in the year 2005 i.e. on 03.02.2005 to be precise. Eighteen years have already gone by. The stan