L.N.MITTAL - (1.) CM No.12334-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case
(2.) NOTICE of motion to respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs only. Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the revision petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal today itself. Defendant No.3 Kapil Dev has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 28.04.2012 CR No.2866 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Annexure P-7 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby closing evidence of defendant No.3 by Court order. The case has a chequered history. The suit is of the year 1996 i.e. 16 years old. Petitioner has come to this Court many a time. Vide order dated 28.02.2006 passed in CR No.5202 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner, this Court directed the trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously by giving three opportunities to the defendants to lead their evidence so that the suit is decided on or before 31.08.2006. Petitioner moved CM No.6671-C of 2006 in the aforesaid revision petition seeking six opportunities instead of three opportunities for his evidence but the said prayer was declined by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2006. Vide order dated 11.11.2011, time for deciding the suit was extended till 31.03.2012. The said deadline has also since expired. Defendant No.3 did not close his evidence till the passing of impugned order dated 28.04.2012 when the trial Court was forced to pass the impugned order to close evidence of defendant No.3-petitioner by Court order. Impugned order also reveals conduct of the petitioner before the trial Court. The said conduct is strongly disapproved. It is expected that with this approval, the petitioner shall mend his conduct and behaviour before the trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more effective opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at his own responsibility, subject to payment of costs. The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs keeping in view the long and chequered history of the suit. CR;