ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as the ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“A. Set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Mr. Kishore Kumar, Ld. Additional District Judge-04, north, RHC/ Delhi in case no. CS DJ 250/18 titled Nidhi Goyal vs Guddu Chaudhary B. Pass an order thereby directing the Ld. Trial court to reopen the plaintiff evidence C. To Allow the petitioner to examine the witnesses as mentioned in the petiton D. Pass such other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEENC.R.P. 63/2024 Page 1 of 10

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein purchased a property bearing no. 2-E, Prithviraj Road, D Block, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter as the ‘suit property’) vide sale deed dated 23rd June, 2016, which is duly registered in Book No. I, Volume No. 6361, Pages 31-38, Registration No. 8108 with Sub-Registrar VI-A, Delhi. The suit property comprises of build-up structure on land measuring 170 square yards, identified as part of Khasra No. 262/258/217/4, situated in the area of Village Bharola, within the locality known as Prithvi Raj Road, D-Block, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.

3. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed a civil suit bearing no. CS DJ 250/18 for declaration of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction of the suit property before the learned ADJ, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter as the ‘Trial Court’) against the respondents/ defendant no. 1 and 2, who are allegedly being in illegal occupation of the suit property and respondent/ defendant no.3, who is the predecessor-in-interest herein.

4. On 18th May, 2023, the learned Trial Court ordered the petitioner to engage a counsel on immediate basis for competition of plaintiff’s evidence as her counsel remained absent. Accordingly, the petitioner engaged a counsel and completed her evidence, however, only until later did she came to know that the entire plaintiff’s evidence has been closed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 18th May, 2023.

5. In light of the same, the petitioner filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC with a list of witnesses seeking re-opening of plaintiff’s evidence, which was dismissed vide order dated 20th December, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEENC.R.P. 63/2024 Page 2 of 10

2023 (hereinafter as the ‘impugned order’) for not meeting the statutory requirement under the CPC.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after framing of the issues on 5th August, 2019, the previous counsel failed to file a list of witnesses before the learned Trial Court and that the petitioner being a layman, did not comprehend the adversity of such inaction.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner was under the impression that only her individual evidence is being closed, however, the petitioner’s evidence in entirety has been closed by the learned Trial Court on 18th May, 2023.

9. It is further submitted that the examination of witnesses is vital for proper adjudication of the issue and that if the petitioner is not permitted to examine the witnesses as per the list, it will cause grave injustice to her.

10. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that in the interest of justice, the petitioner may be allowed to examine the witnesses as per the list submitted and furthermore, the learned Trial Court may be directed to re-

open the plaintiff evidence.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that there is no illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as the statutory provisions were duly