V.K. Jhanji, J. - (1.) Civil Miscellaneous is allowed as prayed for. Delay in making good the deficiency in Court fee, if any, is condoned.
(2.) Vide order dated 3rd November, 2000 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar request made by learned counsel for the plaintiff for one more opportunity only for tendering the documentary 1 record, certified copies whereof were not available, was allowed subject to the condition that no further adjournment for tendering the documentary record would be granted to the plaintiff beyond the next date i.e. 23rd November, 2000 so fixed in the suit. It was made clear by the trial Court that as the case is very old and is to be disposed of in a time bound manner, the parties should come prepared to address their arguments or to submit arguments in writing on the date so fixed. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 5058 of 2000 in this Court which was disposed of on 20th November, 2000 by passing the following orders:- "Notice to the respondents. Shri H.S. Mann, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present revision stands disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to give one and final opportunity to the petitioners to enable them to lead evidence in rebuttal and tender the documents regarding which permission has already been granted. Directions are further given to the trial Court to ensure that the petitioners in the garb of this opportunity shall not be able to lead evidence which should be led in affirmative."
(3.) Pursuant to the order dated 20th November, 2000, trial Court was to give one and Final opportunity to the petitioner to enable it to lead evidence in rebuttal and tender documents regarding which permission had already been granted. Plaintiff though was given only one opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal by this Court, yet the trial Court granted 11 opportunities but the plaintiff neither led any evidence in rebuttal nor tendered documents in question. On 2nd May, 2001, because of the failure of the plaintiff to produce evidence in rebuttal despite having been afforded opportunities for the same, trial Court closed evidence of the plaintiff. It is after almost three months of passing of the order dated 24th May, 2001 that the present revision petition has been filed.;