IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106)

Date of Decision:-13.02.2026 SANDEEP … Petitioner Versus SATBIR AND OTHERS ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

V IRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, whereby, the application filed by petitioner for additional evidence was dismissed. In fact respondents No.3 and 4 filed a suit for possession by way of partition against the petitioner and others. The learned trial Court passed an order dated 21.03.2022 directing the parties to maintain status quo qua construction and possession as per their share. Respondents No.1 to 4 violated the order. Petitioner and respondent No.5 initiated proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC. During the pendency of those proceedings. After conclusion of evidence of the petitioner, respondent also concluded the evidence. Thereafter, an application was filed by petitioner for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Vide that application, petitioner sought permission to place and prove on record a site plan by examining the draftsman and also sought permission to examine Kuldeep and Suresh as witnesses alleging that testimony of those witnesses is necessary. Application was contested by the respondents and vide impugned order, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application.

2. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse as opportunity to lead additional evidence has not been afforded to the petitioner and his application was declined and he seeks one opportunity to lead additional evidence.

5. Perusal of the order shows that petitioners has availed eight effective opportunities for leading evidence and ample chances were given to the petitioner to tender documents and examine witnesses. Even Kuldeep, one of petitioner before trial Court has failed to step into the witness box and has closed the evidence without examining even himself. The learned Court concluded that production of site plan would not be helpful in ascertaining as to if the construction has been raised during subsistence of status quo order or not and with regard to pendency of the civil suit between the parties that fact has been admitted, so application was declined.

6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court as there is no illegality or perversity in the order. The learned Civil Judge has rightly declined the application for additional evidence as in application, petitioner has not specified as to how the examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by way of additional evidence would be helpful in deciding the matter and the learned Civil Judge has rightly observed that proof of site plan would not be helpful in proving the fact that any construction has been raised during the subsistence of status quo order, as such, no ground is made out to allow this revision petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.

7. As a natural corollary, since the main cases stand dismissed , all miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

13^th February, 2026 JUDGE S. Pathania