IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (290)

CR-366-2021 Date of Decision: - 20.11.2025 Ranjna Sharma and others ....Petitioners Versus Sita Rani and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Arun Kumar Singal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide which the application under Section 151 CPC for recalling Sita Rani and her GPA Kulbhushan Sharma for the purpose of further cross-

examination has been dismissed.

2. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1-Sita Rani through her General Power of Attorney Kulbhushan Sharma had filed a suit for declaration with the following prayers: -

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has inherited 1/4^th share in the estate (movable and immovable) left by late Sh. Sukhdev Sharma and accordingly the plaintiff is the owner of 1/4^th share in the movable and immovable property left behind by late Sh. Sukhdev Sharma;

Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant No.4 to transfer 1/4^th share of House No.858, Sector-11, Panchkula in favour of the plaintiff;

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 from releasing any amount beyond 3/4^th share in the amount lying deposited in Savings Bank Accounts / Current Accounts / Fixed Deposit Accounts maintained by late Sh. Sukhdev Sharma in Defendant Nos.5, 6 & 7 banks as the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to

1/4^th share of the amount lying in these accounts.

Further suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.8 from making the payment of the rental amount of House No.858, Sector-11, Panchkula beyond 3/4^th share of the rental amount i.e. beyond ₹5250/- to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3; and Suit for recovery of ₹5,35,732/- on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.”

A perusal of the above would show that apart from other prayers, a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.4 to transfer 1/4^th share of house in question and for recovery of Rs.5,35,732/- was also made. The petitioners were impleaded as defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit.

3. It is further not in dispute that after the written statement had been filed by the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3, the plaintiff had led his entire evidence and had also produced on record certified copies of documents Ex.PX, Ex.PY/1 to Ex.PY/3 and Ex.PZ1 to Ex.PZ/2. The zimni order dated 12.04.2019 vide which the said documents were tendered and were duly exhibited is reproduced herein below: -

“Present:- Sh. Ajay Kaushik, Counsel for the plaintiff. Shri Sameer Sethi, Counsel for defendants no.1 to 3. Shri Chand Deep Jindal, Counsel for defendant no.5.

(defendant no.5 already off v.o.d. 11.08.2017)

Defendants no.4, 6 and 7 proceeded against ex-parte.

Defendant no.8 proceeded against ex-parte v.o.d.

24.08.2016.

Sh. Sanjay Bansal, Advocate (LC) has suffered a statement that on 06.04.2019 plaintiff Sita Ram was cross-examined by defendant No. 1 to 3. Thereafter Sh. Kulbhushan Sharma, i.e. General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff has closed the evidence on behalf of plaintiff after tendering documents Ex.PX, Ex.PY/1 to Ex.PY/3 and Ex.PZ1 to Ex.PZ/2 in affirmative, vide separately recorded statement. Heard. In view of the same, to come upon 01.05.2019 for Dws.

(Rohit Watts) ACJ(SD)/PKL HR0215 Date of Order: 12.04.2019 Next Date: 01.05.2019”

A perusal of the above would show that counsel for the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 was also present and no objection was raised by the said counsel to the mode of proof, or any other aspect, or to the exhibition of the said documents. It has not been disputed that the plaintiff Sita Rani and Kulbhushan Sharma had already been examined and due opportunities to cross-examine the said witnesses were given