IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

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

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 Demand Draft within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of this order. Upon production of proof of payment of costs before the learned trial Court, a date shall be fixed for recording of the petitioner’s evidence.

9. It is clarified that the opportunity so gran