PURAN CHAND Vs. RAM SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is instituted against order dated 8.7.2011 rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kasauli, Solan in CMA No. 149/6 of 2011 in Civil Suit No. 12/1 of 2010.

(2.) PERTINENT facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents -plaintiffs (herein referred to as 'plaintiffs' for convenience sake) have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner -defendant No. 1 and other defendants (herein after referred to 'defendant(s)' for convenience sake), from marking, cutting, felling and removing any type of tree from the suit land, ousting the plaintiffs from the suit land in their possession, causing any type of damage to the suit land, making any addition or alterations in the same, digging/excavating, changing nature of the suit land, raising any type of construction on any portion of the suit land except by way of partition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through order dated 8.7.2011. Civil Suit No. 12/1 of 2010 was filed in the month of January 2010. Issues were framed on 14.7.2010. Evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 1.11.2010. Plaintiffs have led their evidence by way of affidavits and copies of affidavits were supplied to the defendants well in advance. Plaintiffs' witnesses were cross -examined at length. Defendants were given three chances to produce their evidence. However, defendants instead of leading their evidence, have filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to further cross -examine plaintiffs' witnesses. Application filed by the defendants is misconceived. Defendants ought to have put all the relevant questions to the plaintiffs' witnesses in cross -examinations. They can not be permitted to fill -up lacunae in the case. They have not even disclosed the detail of documents which they wanted to put to the plaintiffs' witnesses in further cross -examination. Defendants have already been given even last opportunity to lead their evidence subject to costs. Entire exercise has been taken by the defendants to delay the proceedings pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli.