IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8494-2025 Reserved on: 21.11.2025 Pronounced on: 28.11.2025 VIPIN KUMAR ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhinav Mahant, Additional A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Akhil Ahuja, Advocate for caveator/respondent No.5.

Parmod Goyal, J.

The present petition has been filed by petitioner/plaintiff who is aggrieved by impugned order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-18), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali vide which application for leading rebuttal evidence preferred by petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Facts regarding issue before this Court are not disputed. Admittedly, vide order dated 13.05.2025, additional issues were framed on application for framing additional issues qua limitation. Following issues were framed:-

3-A)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within the period of limitation or not? OPD

3-B)Whether the defendants are entitled for special cost under Section 35-A of CPC for false and vexatious suit or not?

OPD

3. No further evidence however was led by defendants/ respondents and after framing of additional issues case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and for arguments. On 01.10.2025, petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for examination of handwriting and fingerprint expert, however, defendant No.4-Raj Kumari suffered statement that Special Power of Attorney dated 17.05.2021 is correct and she had put her signatures without any pressure and with her free consent and will. In view of the statement made by defendant No.4-Raj Kumari, the application to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert preferred by petitioner/plaintiff was disposed of on 01.10.2025 itself. Petitioner/plaintiff however had challenged the order dated 01.10.2025 before this Court. The revision petition bearing CR No.7603 of 2025 was disposed of on 24.10.2025 by this Court as withdrawn with liberty to move appropriate application before learned Trial Court if so advised to avail his remedies with respect to additional issues that had been so framed.

4. Subsequent to withdrawal of revision petition, petitioner/ plaintiff had moved the present application seeking to examine the following witnesses in rebuttal evidence to additional issues. The witnesses so sought to be summoned are as under:-

I. Concerned Clerk of Municipal Council Mandi Dabwali, along with whole transfer record from the name of Tara Chand son of Sant Lal in favour of Raj Kumari wife of Tara Chand along with president order dated 01.09.2016 regarding above transfer of name of Shop No.15, old grain Market, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

II. Concerned Clerk of Municipal Council (improvement trust Mandi Dabwali Merged in Municipal Council) Mandi Dabwali, along with notification of Government of Haryana regarding Merging of improvement trust in Municipal Council Mandi Dabwali.

III. Concerned Clerk of Municipal Council (improvement trust Mandi Dabwali Merged in Municipal Council) Mandi Dabwali, along with transfer of improvement trust property/sale deed/transfer deed in the name of Tara Chand son of Sant Lal regarding behind portion of shop no.15, old grain Market, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa related to improvement trust Mandi Dabwali.

IV. Concerned Clerk of Municipal Council, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa along with notification of Government of Haryana bearing No.72-2020 dated 19.04.2023/No.5/9/ 2023-3MC comprehensive policy for all the Government departments/boards/corporations/authorities for disposing its properties (Shops/Houses/others in possession of an individual or private entity(ies) by way of rent/lease, for 20 years or more.

5. The above noted application moved by petitioner/plaintiff to examine aforesaid four witnesses was declined vide impugned order by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali.

6. It is admitted fact that after framing of additional issues on 13.05.2025 o