109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.5286 of 2014

Date of decision: August 12, 2014

Rekha Rani

...Petitioner

Versus

Kewal Krishan and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this civil revision against respondents

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside

impugned order dated 16.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Kurukshetra, vide which the application for granting

opportunity to lead evidence and record the statement of

applicant/defendant No.7 instead of closing her evidence, has been

dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have

gone through the record as well as the impugned order.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

admitted that the petitioner is proforma defendant No.7 in the civil suit.

It is also clear from the record that so many opportunities were

granted to the defendants to produce and complete the evidence and

the contesting defendants have examined so many witnesses and

then closed the evidence. The Court has fixed the case for rebuttal

evidence, if any, and arguments, which means that no further

adjournment was given after closing the evidence by the contesting

VINEET GULATI

2014.08.20 17:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR No.5286 of 2014

-2-

defendants for leading further evidence by any of the defendant. If

the counsel of the present petitioner, who is proforma defendant while

appearing in the lower Court has not made statement of closing the

evidence, itself is no ground to grant opportunity to lead evidence to

defendant No.7. The petitioner has not shown any interim order to

this Court making the request to the Court for further adjournment to

lead the evidence. It is also admitted at the time of arguments that

present petitioner is proforma defendant No.7 in the civil suit and is

not contesting the claim of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has also not shown anything on the record that the Court

has directed only defendants No.1 to 3 (contesting defendants) to

lead the evidence. Further, from the interim orders, it is clear that the

application for permission to obtain the photographs of disputed

signatures on the documents and admitted signatures on Will from the

file and application to grant permission to plaintiff to produce

defendant No.7 as his witness in rebuttal evidence etc. has been filed,

which prima facie shows that proforma defendant No.7 wants to

examine himself to support the plaintiff and to help the case of the

plaintiff.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned

order dated 16.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Kurukshetra is correct and as per law and it does not

require any interference from this Court. Therefore, finding no merit in

the present petition, the same is dismissed.

August 12, 2014

(INDERJIT SINGH)

Vgulati

JUDGE

VINEET GULATI

2014.08.20 17:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh