Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 20.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jalalabad, Annexure P3 vide which evidence of petitioners -defendants was closed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for declaration was filed by respondent -plaintiff against the present petitioners i.e. State of Punjab and others to the effect that order dated 15.12.1994 passed by Defendant No. 2 in case titled as State of Punjab v. Bagicha Singh under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Public Premises Act as well as order dated 15.10.2003 passed by Defendant No. 3 as appellate Authority in appeal qua land in dispute are null and void and not binding upon rights of plaintiff with a prayer for consequential relief of injunction. Suit was contested by the present petitioner -State. Issues were framed. Evidence of plaintiff was closed on 19.10.2009 and thereafter, five opportunities were availed by the present petitioners -defendants to lead evidence and however, no evidence was adduced and hence, the evidence of defendants was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.07.2010, which reads as under: Today, Sh. Anoop Munjal Advocate has appeared on behalf of plaintiff and filed his power of attorney. No evidence of defendants is present despite last opportunity. The Ltd. G.P. for the defendants has requested for a date, which is opposed by Ltd. counsel for the plaintiff. The perusal of the file goes to show that the plaintiff closed his evidence on 19.10.2009 and since then, case is lingering on for evidence of defendants but the defendants have failed to conclude the same inspite of availing several opportunities including four last opportunities. The case pertains to the year 2004 and has become 6 years old. No justification to adjourn the case further for evidence of the defendants is made out. As such, the request of Ltd. G.P. for the defendants for further adjournment for evidence of defendants is declined and evidence of these defendants is hereby ordered to be closed. Now case is adjourned to 4.8.2010 for consideration.
(3.) IT has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioners -State that evidence could not be adduced due to negligence on the part of concerned official of the Forest Department as he did not come as the Forest Department was not impleaded as a party.;