##PAGE1##

CR No.8150 of 2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

108

Civil Revision No.8150 of 2018

Date of decision: January 30^th, 2026

M/s Dev Raj Institution of Management & Technology

.....Petitioner

Versus

Ved Kumar Sharma and another

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 18.01.2018

(Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur,

whereby evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff has been closed by order and

order dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-2), whereby the application filed by the

petitioner for recalling the order dated 18.01.2018 has been dismissed.

2. On 30.11.2018, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to

pass the following order:

“Present: Mr. Raman Goklaney, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*****

It is submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner

inter alia that his evidence was closed on 18th January, 2018

vide the impugned order Annexure P-1, and his subsequent

application seeking recall of the same order filed within a

month on 7th February, 2018 was rejected vide the

impugned order Annexure P-2.

It is further submitted that one of the petitioner's

witnesses was present on an earlier date and his

PUNEET SACHDEVA

2026.01.30 17:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR No.8150 of 2018 2

Examination-in-Chief had been completed. However, the

date fixed for his cross-examination was subsequently

declared as holiday, and therefore his attendance could not

be procured on the adjourned date, while his other remaining

witnesses failed to turn up inspite of issuance of regular

summons for which the petitioner should not have been

penalized.

It is further submitted that attendance of the

concerned witnesses can only be secured by way of coercive

processes such as bailable witness warrants, since in the past

they had failed to turn up inspite of issuance of summons,

and that the petitioner would not only be diligent in filing the

requisites for issuance of such processes to compel

attendance of the witnesses, but also pay appropriate

compensatory costs to the other side.

Notice of motion for 1st March, 2019.

Ld. Trial Court is directed to adjourn its

proceedings beyond the date fixed by this Court.

November 30, 2018”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present

suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery and thus, any delay

in the proceedings would primarily prejudice the petitioner. It is submitted

that in the said circumstances, the petitioner be granted two effective

opportunities to conclude its entire evidence. It is further argued that for the

₹

inconvenience caused, the petitioner is ready to deposit 20,000/-, which

would be paid to the respondents.

4. Although the respondents have not been served but since the

proceedings have been stayed since 2018, it is thus not possible that they

would not be aware of the present revision petition, as the trial Court

proceedings, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, are being

adjourned on account of the interim order passed by the coordinate Bench of

this Court.

PUNEET SACHDEVA

2026.01.30 17:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR No.8150 of 2018 3

5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that since the

delay in the proceedings is primarily prejudicing the petitioner as it is the

petitioner’s suit for recovery, thus, in the said circumstances, the petitioner

should be granted two effective opportunities to conclude its entire evidence.

₹

The same would however be subject to cost of 20,000/-.

6. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the

order dated 18.01.2018 as well as the order dated 24.09.2018 are set aside

and the present petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is granted two

effective opportunities to lead its entire evidence. The petitioner wou