IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9711-2025

DECIDED ON: 22.12.2025 HARJINDER PAL SINGH

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

NARENDER NAGIA AND ANOTHER

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–plaintiff challenging three interlocutory orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, in Civil Suit No. CS-14244-2013 titled as “Harjinder Pal Singh versus Narender Nangia etc.”, namely the order dated 11.07.2023 whereby the application for summoning additional witnesses was dismissed, the order dated 13.07.2023 whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by court orders, and the order dated 13.11.2025 whereby the application

under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is not attempting to fill any lacuna in his case at the fag end of the trial. The witnesses in question were

originally cited by the petitioner in the List of Witnesses dated 03.11.2022

and are essential for proving the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, this is not a case of leading additional evidence; rather, the petitioner had earlier sought the summoning of the same witnesses, but they could not be examined before the learned Trial Court for reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. Accordingly, it is prayed that one opportunity may kindly be granted to the plaintiff to prove his case before the learned Trial Court.

3. Since the short controversy is involved in the present revision petition, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents.

4. The case pertains to the year 2012 and has remained pending for more than a decade. The record reveals that issues were framed in the year 2022 and thereafter the matter was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. The petitioner was afforded repeated and sufficient opportunities to conclude his evidence. In fact, the petitioner examined as many as sixteen witnesses, whereas the defendants have examined twelve witnesses. The learned Trial Court repeatedly cautioned the petitioner that the opportunities granted were “last opportunities”, yet the petitioner failed to conclude his evidence within the time granted.

5. The first impugned order dated 11.07.2023 reflects that the learned Trial Court declined the prayer for summoning additional witnesses after noticing that earlier applications for summoning the very same record and witnesses had already been allowed, but the record could not be traced and no fruitful purpose would be served by repeatedly summoning the same witnesses. The said order clearly records that several effective opportunities had already been availed by the petitioner and no justifiable ground was made out for further indulgence.

6. The second impugned order dated 13.07.2023 shows that despite a clear warning that the said date would be the last opportunity, the petitioner again sought adjournment. The learned Trial Court, keeping in view the age of the case and the conduct of the petitioner, closed the plaintiff’s evidence by court order and rightly proceeded to fix the matter for defence evidence. The said order cannot be termed either arbitrary or mechanical, as it is preceded by a long history of indulgence granted to the petitioner.

7. The third impugned order dated 13.11.2025 dismissing the application under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence has been passed after detailed consideration. The learned Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner failed to disclose the material relevance of the documents sought to be introduced and that permitting such evidence at the fag end of the trial would amount to filling up lacunae and reopening the case. The Court also noticed that the petitioner was fully aware of the documents at the time of leading evidence and had availed sufficient opportuniti