KESHO RAM Vs. DALIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 5 is a proforma party and need not be served. Ordered accordingly.

(2.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 28.7.1997 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Talwandi Sabo. By this order, the learned Additional Civil Judge has closed the evidence of the plaintiff.

(3.) COPIES of the jimni orders from 11.3.1997 onwards have been produced before me. On 11.3.1997 no PW was present and at the request of learned counsel of the plaintiff, the case was adjourned to 23.4.1997. On 23.4.1997 one PW was examined in part and it was at the request of learned counsel of the plaintiff that the case was adjourned to 5.6.1997. On 5.6.1997 no PW was present and the plaintiff was given last opportunity to examine his witnesses and case was adjourned to 28.7.1997. On 28.7.1997 since no PW was present, evidence of the plaintiff was closed. From the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial court, it is clear that the averments made in para 6 of the grounds of revision are false and not correct. Keeping in view the false and incorrect facts given by the petitioner in the revision petition, I am of the opinion that this ground itself is sufficient for dismissal with costs of Rs. 500/-. Cost to be deposited in the Legal aid Cell, Talwandi Sabo. Revision dismissed.