IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 Harminder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Bhag Singh deceased through his LRs and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate, with Ms. Kanwaljit Kaur Dhillon, Advocate Ms. Aneet Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Avneet Kaur Mangat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , J. (ORAL)

CM-1148-CII-2026 Application is allowed as prayed for.

Main Case

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-21) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar, in Civil Suit No.38 of 2016, whereby the evidence of the defendants was ordered to be closed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Bhag Singh (now deceased) filed a suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining him from alienating the suit property, as detailed in the plaint. Notice of the said suit was served upon the defendants/petitioner, who contested the same by filing a written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The record further reveals that on 11.07.2025, the respondent-plaintiff closed his evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence. On 17.12.2025, a no-work day was observed by the members of the District Bar Association, SAS Nagar, Mohali, and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, adjourned the matter to 07.01.2026 for defendants’ evidence with directions to conclude the entire evidence on the next date of hearing. On 07.01.2026, no DW was present and the petitioner/defendant sought an adjournment but the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, held that the petitioner had availed a number of opportunities including last opportunities whreas on the previous date it was made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the defendant. As the defendant again failed to conclude his evidence, the evidence of the defendant was closed by order. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 15.01.2026 for rebuttal and arguments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no last opportunity was granted to the petitioner, as is evident from the interim orders so placed before this Court. He further submits that, since valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in getting the suit decided, the petitioner may be granted two effective opportunities to conclude his entire evidence, as he has to examine number of witnesses before the learned trial Court.

4. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceeding and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondents.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the paper book.

6. In view of the above and considering the fact that the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, on the date fixed. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, is further directed to grant the petitioner two effective opportunities to conclude his entire evidence, subject to payment of ₹

costs of 5,000/- to be deposited with the concerned District Legal Services Authority.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE

27.01.2026 anil Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No