Daya Nand Sharma vs Shri S.P. Arora and Others

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.8.2012, passed by the court below whereby evidence of plaintiff has been closed by order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that petitioner ought to have been allowed one opportunity to conclude his evidence.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appears, the case pertains to year 2005. Plaintiff availed number of opportunities to conclude his evidence but failed to do so. On 14.8.2012 plaintiff''s witness namely, S.P. Arora failed to appear before the court. Evidence of plaintiff was, thus, closed by order. I find no legal infirmity with the order passed. In my considered view plaintiff is not entitled to avail any further opportunity for leading further evidence. In view of ratio in Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others, no further opportunity can be granted to the plaintiff. There is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.