SODHI RAM Vs. DHARMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant/Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 24.12.2010 (P3) whereby the evidence of the Defendant has been closed by order.

(2.) It is stated that Plaintiff/Respondent Dharma Ram is the father of the Defendant/Petitioner. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner-son from harvesting the wheat crop sown by him in his land measuring 38 kanals 6 marlas fully detailed in the suit, being self-acquired property of the Plaintiff. The Petitioner/Defendant has set up the plea that the suit land is ancestral/coparcenary property and the Petitioner is in exclusive possession of the same and the wheat crop has been sown by the Defendant.

(3.) Learned Counsel submits that though the Petitioner/Defendant has been given sufficient opportunities, however, due to wrong mentioning of the date, Petitioner could not lead his remaining evidence. He, however, prays that one last opportunity be granted to conclude the evidence subject to payment of appropriate costs.