IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-815-2026 Date of Decision:28.01.2026 M/S JASPAL TRADING COMPANY ...Petitioner Vs.

KULWANT SINGH ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Varun Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. ( Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 22.12.2025, Annexure P-9, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar whereby the evidence of the present petitioner/plaintiff has been closed by order.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a civil suit ₹

for recovery of a sum of 14,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 25.02.2022 till its actual realization. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent/defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. After completion of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the issues, and the case was thereafter fixed for the petitioner/plaintiff’s evidence on 17.02.2023. That thereafter, the learned Trial Court granted several opportunities to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead his evidence, extending up to 29.02.2023, but, petitioner/plaintiff could not conclude his evidence, and on one of the dates, i.e., 19.04.2023, the petitioner/plaintiff examined two witnesses in examination-in-chief. Subsequently, the matter remained pending for recording their cross-examination as well as for leading further evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner/plaintiff had examined three witnesses in examination-in-chief, and the cross-examination of all the said witnesses was still pending. Despite the fact that the evidence had not been concluded and the witnesses were available for cross-examination, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2025, closed the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff by order. Hence, the petition.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had examined three witnesses in examination-in-chief as far back as April 2024; however, their cross-examination could not be conducted as the counsel for the defendant was unable to cross-examine the said witnesses. Thereafter, the matter remained pending and was transferred from one Court to another on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, resulting in considerable delay in the proceedings. It was further submitted that during the relevant period, a member of the petitioner’s family expired, and the last rites were performed from 21.12.2025 to 23.12.2025. Owing to the said unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner’s counsel could not appear before the learned Trial Court on 22.12.2025 and, consequently, no witness could be examined on that date. It was thus contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, closing the petitioner’s evidence, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

5. A perusal of the case history reveals that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence. However, the petitioner commenced the examination of witnesses after a lapse of more than one year from the date when the case was first fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence. During the said period, the matter was adjourned on as many as eight effective occasions for recording the plaintiff’s evidence. It is evident from the record that ample and effective opportunities were afforded to the plaintiff. On 22.12.2025, the learned Trial Court was not apprised of any unfortunate incident in the petitioner’s family. Rather, prior to the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner had informed the Court that the petitioner was unable to appear as he was engaged in the agricultural procurement season in his capacity as a commission agent. The learned Civil Judge, considering the said submission, acceded to the request and adjou