KRIPAL KAUR Vs. GURMEL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions are filed by the plaintiff. By way of these revision petitions, challenge is to the order dated 8.11.2004 vide which oral evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The other revision petition challenges the order dated 29.9.2005 vide which the learned trial Court has rejected the application dated 8.8.2005 filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The plaintiff wanted to examine one Shri Inderjit Singh son of Shri Hardev Singh who was the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and through whom the suit had been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the plaintiff Smt. Kripal Kaur is a widow who is residing abroad. She had filed the present suit against the defendants seeking a declaration that she is owner of a plot No. 61, Sector 4, Panchkula measuring one kanal and also challenged the sale deeds and alienation made by the defendants qua the said plot alleging the same to be as a result of fraud, criminal conspiracy and forgery. It has been stated that on 8.11.2004 Shri Inderjit Singh could not be produced as a witness as he was ill. He is stated to be an old man. It was therefore that an opportunity had been sought to examine him which however was declined by the learned trial Court. Again an application had been made before the trial Court to permit the plaintiff to examine the said Inderjit Singh. It is stated that his statement would be very crucial to the controversy in so far as the petitioner's case is concerned. The learned counsel prays that if one opportunity is granted he would produce his witness.

(3.) As against this learned counsel for the respondents states that the proceedings are needlessly being delayed by the plaintiff. He states that by now even the defendants had closed their evidence and the matter has been fixed for arguments before the trial Court. The defendants are unnecessarily being harassed on account of delay caused by the plaintiff.