##PAGE1##

CR-9753-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CR-9753-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 23.12.2025

Jatinder Pal Singh

. . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Amritpal Singh Thind and another

. . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in Civil Suit bearing CIS No.

CS/19929/2023, titled “Jatinder Pal Singh v. Amritpal Singh and another”,

pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. The

present petition is directed against the order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure P-

9), whereby the petitioner’s evidence was closed. The petitioner had also

moved an application seeking recall of the said order; however, the same

came was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.11.2025

(Annexure P-12).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the aforesaid

orders, submits that although issues were framed on 23.08.2024, the

petitioner could not lead his evidence due to a communication gap between

the petitioner and his counsel. It is further contended that learned counsel

representing the petitioner had gone abroad in December, 2024 and returned

only in March, 2025, which contributed to the failure in producing evidence.

On the strength of these submissions, a prayer has been made for grant of

one effective opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence.

3. A perusal of the trial Court record reveals that after framing of

issues, the petitioner was afforded as many as five opportunities to lead

1 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 15:14:56 :::

CR-9753-2025 2025:PHHC:177889

evidence. Despite repeated adjournments, not even a single witness was

examined on behalf of the petitioner. The record does not disclose any

attempt on the part of the petitioner to summon witnesses or to otherwise

demonstrate diligence in prosecuting his case.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial Court cannot be

faulted for closing the petitioner’s evidence. The impugned orders are in

consonance with the settled principle that a litigant cannot be permitted to

prolong proceedings indefinitely by seeking adjournments without showing

bona fide effort to lead evidence. The explanation offered by the petitioner,

i.e. a communication gap with his counsel due to latter’s travel to abroad,

does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient cause so as to invalidate the exercise

of discretion by the trial Court.

5. That said, it is equally well settled that procedural law is intended

to serve as a handmaid of justice and not to defeat substantive rights. Closure

of evidence, though justified on the facts, has the effect of non-suiting a party

and may, in certain circumstances, result in irreparable prejudice. Courts,

therefore, while enforcing procedural discipline, are also required to ensure

that the lis is decided on merits, particularly where the default can be

compensated by imposition of realistic costs and no serious prejudice is

caused to the opposite party.

6. Balancing the aforesaid considerations, this Court is of the view

that one last and final opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to

conclude his entire evidence, subject to stringent conditions, so as to advance

the cause of substantial justice while safeguarding the interests of the

respondents.

7. Accordingly, while affirming the correctness of the impugned

orders in principle, the petitioner is granted one final opportunity to produce

and conclude his entire evidence on a single date to be fixed by the learned

trial Court, strictly at his own responsibility and without seeking any

adjournment.

8. This indulgence is made subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/-,

which the petitioner shall pay to the respondent-defendants by way of

Page 2 of 3

2 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 15:14:57 :::

CR-9753-2025

Demand Draft within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of this

order. Upon production of proof of payment of costs bef