IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.02.2026 GAURAV BHANOT .... Petitioner VERSUS MOHINDER SINGH AHLUWALIA AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby an application filed by plaintiff No.6-petitioner herein for summoning two witnesses was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffs (including the petitioner herein) filed a suit for declaration that sale deed bearing Vasika No.1456 dated 19.04.1991 alleged to have been executed through defendant-respondent No.1 in favour of defendant-respondent No.2 regarding the house constructed on plot No.54/C comprised in Khasra No.408, Khata No.198/212 situated in Village Rajpura (now known as Udham Singh Nagar), Tehsil and District Ludhiana was illegal, null and void and an act of fraud and forgery committed by the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 herein.

It was the case set up that the sale deed dated 19.04.1991 had been executed by defendant-respondent No.1 in favour of his son (defendant-respondent No.2) on the basis of a forged power of attorney dated 29.10.1985. Prayer in the suit was for setting aside the sale deed as the same was an act of fraud and forgery committed by defendant-respondents No.1 and 2. The defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement. After both the parties led their evidence, at the stage of rebuttal evidence, plaintiff No.6-petitioner herein filed an application ‘for summoning the witnesses on payment of process fee/diet money’. The said application was dismissed and rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs (including the petitioner herein) was closed by order. It was noted in the order that the case has been pending since 1997 and amongst the Action Plan cases. The case was fixed for final arguments on

28.05.2024.

3. Learned counsel for plaintiff No.6-petiitoner herein would contend that plaintiff No.6-petitioner wants to lead rebuttal evidence on issue No.4 which issue reads as under :

‘4. Whether Ashwani handed over attorney in 1985 and defendants are living in property since 1988/1991 ? OPD’

It is further the contention that the original general power of attorney was not available with plaintiff No.6-petitioner and it came on record for the first time when the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 led their evidence.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant-respondent No.2 has contended that the suit in the present case was filed in 1997. The plaintiffs (including the petitioner herein) commenced their evidence in 2002 and closed it in the affirmative vide order dated 17.12.2014. Thereafter the evidence of the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 was closed by order vide order dated 22.04.2024. The plaintiff No.6-petitioner filed the application for summoning the two witnesses on payment of process fee/diet money. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the application does not even state whether the evidence now sought to be led was in the rebuttal or as additional evidence. It is further the contention that the application now filed by the plaintiff No.6- petitioner is to examine the handwriting expert qua the general power of attorney on the basis of which the sale deed was executed; that the said evidence was to be led in the affirmative on issue No.1 as reframed by the Trial Court and that issue No.4 has nothing to do with the validity of the general power of attorney as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff No.6-petitioner. Learned counsel has pointed out that vide order dated 13.06.2002 the original general power of attorney was placed on the record and was put in a sealed cover and that there was nothing stoppi