##PAGE1##

CR-9462-2025 (O&M) -1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CR-9462-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :-22.12.2025

Dera Baba Ram Dayal and Another ....Petitioners

VERSUS

Committee Dera Baba Tehal Dass (Regd.) and Others ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners–plaintiffs for setting aside

the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Moga, whereby the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed.

2. A careful perusal of the entire zimni record, placed before this Court,

reveals that the present suit has remained at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence for a

considerable period. However, the zimni orders unmistakably show that on

numerous occasions the plaintiff witnesses were present in Court for cross-

examination, but the same could not be conducted primarily on account of

adjournments sought by the learned counsel for the defendants, either on the

ground of court time being over, counsel not being ready, or for deferred cross-

examination.

3. From the zimni record, it appears that approximately 8–10 dates were

consumed where the plaintiff witnesses were present or partly cross-examined, but

effective cross-examination could not be concluded at the request of the

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.22 14:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-9462-2025 (O&M) -2

defendants. On the other hand, the plaintiffs appear to have sought adjournments

on approximately 3–4 occasions, largely on account of absence of regular counsel

or production of witnesses. In addition, several dates were adjourned on joint

request of the parties, owing to Bar Association calls, strikes, vacations, or

administrative reasons, which cannot be attributed exclusively to either side.

4. The record further shows that during the pendency of plaintiff’s

evidence, additional issues were framed by the Trial Court on 17.10.2025, which

by itself warranted a fair and reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead and

conclude evidence in respect thereof. The continuation of evidence after framing of

additional issues is clearly reflected from subsequent zimni orders.

5. It is thus evident that the delay in conclusion of evidence cannot be

attributed solely to the plaintiffs. Rather, the predominant reason for non-

conclusion of evidence has been repeated adjournments sought by the defendants

for cross-examination, despite the presence of plaintiff witnesses on several dates.

The approach of the Trial Court in closing the entire plaintiff’s evidence, therefore,

appears to be disproportionate and not in consonance with the record itself.

6. This Court is conscious of the fact that the suit is an old one and

requires expeditious disposal. At the same time, procedural law is meant to

advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the ends of justice would be adequately served by granting the plaintiffs two

effective opportunities to conclude their entire remaining evidence, subject to strict

directions.

7. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned

order dated 07.11.2025 is set aside. The plaintiffs are granted two effective

opportunities to conclude their remaining evidence. It is directed that on these

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.22 14:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-9462-2025 (O&M) -3

dates, the learned counsel for the defendants shall conclude the cross-examination

of the plaintiff witnesses on the same day, without seeking unnecessary

adjournments.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no costs are imposed, as the

delay appears to be attributable to both the parties and also to circumstances

beyond their control.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

December 22, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU)

tripti JUDGE

Whether speaking/no