136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision:13.01.2026

RAMESH RANI ...Petitioner

Vs.

SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated

22.12.2025, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalka, has dismissed the application under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner seeking permission of the Court to submit the list of witnesses and to deposit the diet money for issuing

the process of service of witnesses.

2. Perusal of the record reveals that the matter was first posted for the evidence of the petitioner on 19.01.2019. Thereafter, during the period of approximately six years when the suit remained pending for the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence. However, the petitioner repeatedly failed to deposit the diet money or furnish the list of

witnesses.

3. Subsequently, when the case was once again posted for the evidence of the plaintiff and a final opportunity was granted, the

petitioner filed the present application seeking permission to deposit the diet money and place the list of witnesses on record. The learned Civil Judge, in exercising judicial discretion, rightly declined the application, holding that it was filed with a view to delaying the proceedings. The Court observed that the petitioner had already taken an inordinate period of six years to conclude the evidence and that no further indulgence could be granted in the absence of compliance with procedural requirements.

4. The impugned order further demonstrates that the Court provided the petitioner/plaintiff the liberty to bring the witnesses on his own responsibility on the date fixed for evidence. The evidence of the petitioner, originally fixed for 08.01.2026, has now been adjourned to 15.01.2026, clearly reflecting the Court’s attempt to balance procedural propriety with the opportunity to present evidence.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is permitted to obtain dasti summons for the purpose of examining the witnesses. It was further submitted that the witnesses sought to be examined are primarily official witnesses, and there is a likelihood that these witnesses, along with the relevant official records, may not voluntarily appear for examination at the instance of the petitioner.

6. In view of the submissions, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner is permitted to obtain dasti summons for the official witnesses, along with the relevant records, entirely at his own responsibility. It shall be the sole responsibility of the petitioner to ensure proper service of the witnesses. The Court emphasizes that only one effective opportunity shall be granted for the examination of the witnesses, and the petitioner must ensure their presence on the date fixed, failing which no further adjournment shall be allowed.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

JUDGE

13.01.2026 kv