- (1.) THE challenge in this revision petition, preferred by Smt. Inderjit Kaur wife of Charanjit Singh petitioner -defendant No.2 (for brevity "defendant No.2"), is to the impugned order dated 10.3.2014 (Annexure P7), by virtue of which, her application (Annexure P5) to lead additional evidence under Section 151 CPC, was dismissed by the trial Court.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner -defendant No.2, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
(3.) EX facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the adequate opportunities were not granted to petitioner -defendant No.2, so, the trial Court committed the legal mistake to dismiss her application, to lead additional evidence, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. As is evident from the record that, initially, Harish Chander son of late Jagan Nath respondent No.1 -plaintiff (for short "the plaintiff"), has instituted the civil suit dated 30.8.2005 (Annexure P1) for a decree of possession as owner by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 2.5.2005 and in the alternative, the suit for recovery of Rs. 54,40,142/ - against Charanjit Singh defendant No.1, husband of petitioner -defendant No.2. In the wake of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the petitioner was also impleaded as a party/defendant No.2 in the suit, vide order dated 17.11.2006 by the trial Court. Thereafter, she filed the written statement (Annexure P2) dated 20.3.2007. The defendants considerably delayed the disposal of the suit. They did not conclude their evidence despite 24 effective opportunities, including the last opportunity. Consequently, the trial Court closed their evidence, by means of order dated 11.1.2013 (Annexure P3).;