IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 08.01.2026

Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Amar Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Ms. Harkirat Kaur, Advocate for

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. A.P.Kaushal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of

Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur; whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by

order.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, material evidence has been led on the record. But there are three witnesses namely Sarpanch Hazara Ram, Lamberdar Santokh Singh and Smt. Bhupinder Kaur as well as one Darshan Singh who had signed the Will in the capacity of witnesses. But later on, during the course of evidence the aforesaid witnesses have not been putting in appearance. In the given case, aforesaid Bhupinder Kaur one of the

attesting witnesses had earlier put in appearance as PW-6 while submitting her respective evidence. Some portion of her evidence appeared to have been recorded by the court concerned. However, thereafter, the aforesaid witness who were witnesses of the Will had been duly summoned so as to record their respective evidence, but they are intentionally avoiding the same and were not putting in appearance and due to this fact, the trial was unnecessarily delayed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on account of these issues, the Ld. Court had observed vide zimni order dated 1.8.2018 that since the case was quite old and petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities but he had not been able to close the evidence till the year 2018 and therefore, observed that the petitioner would be concluding his entire evidence within three opportunities to be availed by him. Later on, on 6.1.2019, Ld. Court once again held that since the petitioner had failed to bring the necessary evidence, therefore, matter was adjourned to 28.01.2019.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Ld. Court failed to realize that it is the duty of the Court that in case despite efforts on the part of the plaintiff, in order to bring the necessary witnesses, then the Court is not powerless to take coercive measures in calling the said witnesses but in the given case, Ld. Court had straightaway and arbitrarily closed the evidence of the petitioner. In the present case, since the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is very crucial, therefore, petitioner submits that due opportunity should have been given to him to contest his due claim.

5. It is accordingly prayed that the present Civil Revision be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order suffers from no error. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition.

7. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner had filed the instant suit on dated 16.10.2008 seeking declaration and mandatory and permanent injunction. The dispute in the present case is regarding validity of Will dated 05.02.1992 as well as Will dated 28.11.2002. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that issues were framed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.02.2011. During the course of hearing, it has also been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has availed 38 to 39 opportunities to lead evidence. Vide order dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was directed to conclude his evidence within 3 opportunities failing which his evi