IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9680-2025

Date of Decision:22.12.2025

JASBIR SINGH THROUGH SPA ...Petitioner

Vs.

UCO BANK AND OTHERS ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. ( Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the evidence of

the petitioner/plaintiff was closed by order.

2. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration claiming inheritance of Harnek Kaur, which was contested by the respondents/defendants, and the petitioner was leading evidence. The petitioner had examined Pws-1 & 2 long ago, but their cross-examination on behalf of respondents/defendant Nos. 2 and 4 was deferred repeatedly at their request. However, vide the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge closed the petitioner’s evidence on the ground that the issues had been framed almost a year earlier and the petitioner had failed to conclude the evidence. The closure of evidence is unjustified, as the delay was not attributable to the petitioner and has caused serious prejudice by denying him a fair opportunity to prove

his case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has nothing further to do, as only the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 remains to be conducted by respondents/defendant Nos. 2 and 4

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record produced along with the paper-book.

5. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that PW-1 and PW-2 were examined-in-chief on 04.02.2025, whereafter the case was adjourned to 20.02.2025 specifically for the cross-examination of PW-1. On the said date, i.e. 20.02.2025, the cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred at the request of learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and the matter was adjourned to 19.03.2025 for cross-examination, subject to payment of costs of ₹

500/- by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the witness. Subsequently, on 19.03.2025, PW-1 and PW-2 were partly cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 & 3; however, the cross-examination on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 4 was again deferred on their request, and the witnesses were accordingly bound down for 21.03.2025. On 21.03.2025, despite the presence of the witnesses, their cross-examination could not be conducted and was deferred to 24.03.2025 at the request of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Even on 24.03.2025, the cross-examination was once again deferred to 27.03.2025 on the request of the said respondents. Thereafter, on 27.03.2025, at the joint request of both parties, the matter was referred to mediation in view of the likelihood of an amicable settlement of the dispute, and the proceedings remained pending before the Mediation Centre until 27.11.2025.

On the said date, i.e. 27.11.2025, the following order came to be passed:

“Today no PW was present an application for adjournment of the case was filed on behalf of plaintiff. As per contends of the application it is mentioned that plaintiff green card holder of USA and he is residing to USA. He is to come back India on 25.01.2025 other witnesses namely Gulab Singh is not well and not in possession to come to the Court as such they are unable to come present before the Court for toeday. As well as requested for adjournment. Heard, record perused perusal of the record transpired that issues in the present case has been framed on 16.10.2024 i.e. one year before and thereafter plaintiff tendered evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 and PW-2 was cross examined on behalf of defendant No. 1 and 3 their cross examination on behalf of defendant No. 2 and 4 was deferred on 19.03.2025. Since then the case was fixed for cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 by defendant No. 2 and 4. Nothing has been placed on record with the application of