IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 19.12.2025

Meena and others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

Raj Kapoor and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate, with

Mr. Saurav Saini, Advocate, &

Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ,J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum CJM, Rohtak passed in Civil Suit No.566/2018 titled as “Smt. Meena and Others Vs. Raj Kapoor and Others”, whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the

application for additional evidence.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking cancellation of Sale Deed No.1887 dated 11.05.2018. Along with the civil suit, the petitioners also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing their written statement. Thereafter, issues were framed and the parties led their respective

evidence.

3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that as many as nine opportunities were granted to the petitioners to lead rebuttal evidence;

however, no rebuttal evidence was adduced. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application for leading additional evidence, whereupon notice was issued to the respondents, who contested the same by filing a reply. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 16.10.2025, observed that despite nine opportunities having been granted to the petitioners for rebuttal evidence and final arguments by the same counsel, the application for additional evidence was moved only when the Court was about to close the opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence, clearly with an intent to fill up the lacuna in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is a widow who has to manage household chores as well as the education of her children and was unaware of the legal proceedings. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the petitioners be granted an opportunity to lead additional evidence by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the paper book.

6. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners/plaintiffs have failed to explain any justifiable reason for non- submission of the proposed evidence/documents despite having knowledge thereof. The petitioners ought to have led such evidence at the time of leading their affirmative evidence; however, they failed to do so for reasons best known to them. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, particularly when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners at the stage of rebuttal evidence and no satisfactory explanation was furnished for seeking permission to lead additional evidence.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rohtak. Consequently, the present revision petition stands dismissed.

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

19.12.2025 JUDGE anil Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No