IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(119)

Date of Decision:-08.01.2026

RANJANBEN PARTAP SINGH DALAL AND ANOTHER … Petitioners

Versus

SATWATNTI AND ANOTHER ... Respondents

-.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Shivender Pal Singh, Advocate, for

Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate

for the petitioners.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.11.2025, whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh has closed the evidence

of the petitioner.

2. Briefly, petitioners are defendants No.1 and 2 in civil suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2 for declaration that plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Partap Singh Dalal and plaintiff No.2 as her legal heir. The suit was being contested by the petitioners. After conclusion of the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs, petitioners were given opportunity to lead evidence. Costs were also imposed upon the petitioners but counsel for the petitioners neither informed the petitioners about adjournments nor of non-payment of costs. Petitioners tried to contact the counsel on mobile phone but mobile phone was switched off. Petitioner came to know that counsel was having some personal problems in his life and engaged other counsel. After checking the proceedings, petitioners came to know that the evidence of the petitioners/defendants was closed by the order on 10.11.2025.The learned Trial Court has not taken care of the fact that petitioners were not deliberately

negligent but they were prevented by the circumstances beyond their control from leading the evidence as they are the residents of State of Gujarat and due to unavoidable circumstances, they were unable to visit the Court for making statements. The Court failed to appreciate that availing of eight opportunities was due to bona fide reasons, so, the impugned order be set aside and petition be allowed.

3. I have heard the arguments and gone through the records carefully. 4. Perusal of the case history shows that petitioners were given number of opportunities to lead evidence but petitioner failed to tender into evidence any witness. Petitioners were burdened with cost of Rs.500/- each on 13^th of March, 2024 when they failed to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. The case was fixed for evidence of the petitioners for the first time on 09.04.2025. From 09.04.2025, the case was adjourned for evidence of the defendants to 08.05.2025, 29.05.2025, 21.07.2025 and then on 21.07.2025, they were burdened with cost of Rs.500/- to be paid in the account of SDLSA, Bahadurgarh and was adjourned to 04.08.2025. Again on 04.08.2025, the evidence was not present and was adjourned to 20.08.2025 and on 20.08.2025, the previous cost were not paid and the cost were enhanced to Rs.1000/- and matter was adjourned to 17.09.2025. On 17.09.2025, matter was adjourned to 13.10.2025 subject the payment of cost of Rs.1500/- more and then to 10.11.2025 subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2000/- and when on 10.11.2025, again no evidence of the petitioner was present and even the cost was not tendered or paid, the evidence was closed by the order.

5. Civil suits are required to be expeditiously disposed of and it is a mandate for the civil courts to not to grant unnecessary adjournments and that adjournments should be avoided unless and until there is any sufficient cause having shown. In the present case, as per the case history, there is no cogent or convincing reason with the petitioners for not leading evidence when they were called upon to do so. The mere ground that petitioners are residing in the State of Gujarat is not sufficient to grant endless adjournments. Furthermore, in the present case, the adjournments were granted subject to payment of cost, so, payment of cost was condition precedent to proceed further in view of the provisions of Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure but