IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CR-74-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.02.2026 Prem Chand Jain & Another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Dalbara Singh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Navdeep Jain, Advocate for Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P3) passed by ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla whereby evidence of the petitioners has been closed by order.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had filed suit for recovery of Rs.6 lakh. To prove their case, the petitioners had sought to examine official from PNB Bank and had produced Clerk namely Anil Kumar. However, subsequently, Anil Kumar was transferred from the Malerkotla Branch. The petitioners had requested to produce another Bank official. Trial court had sought particulars of the bank official. However, in the meantime, the impugned order came to be passed in haste. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside and petitioners be granted one effective opportunity to produce the plaintiff witnesses for purpose of examination and cross-examination.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions of the petitioners and points out that the fact that Anil Kumar had been transferred was in the knowledge of the petitioners as far back as on 16.08.2023. Yet the petitioner had failed to provide the correct particulars of the witness on four dates thereafter; whereupon the impugned order came to be passed. It is submitted that, therefore, the impugned order suffers from no error. In support, Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 271160, to submit that no further opportunity is required to be given to the petitioners, and present petition be dismissed.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.(cid:1)I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

5. The petitioner had filed suit for recovery on dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure P1). Issues in the case were framed as far back as on 23.03.2021. However, despite grant of numerous opportunities from date of framing of issues on 23.3.2021, till date of passing of impugned order on 6.12.2023, petitioners had failed to conclude their evidence.

6. A perusal of zimni orders (Annexure P2 colly.) reveals that petitioners have been granted numerous opportunities to lead and conclude evidence, however, have failed to do so. Following are the relevant zimni orders from 12.4.2023 till 6.12.2023: –

“PW Anil Kumar from Punjab National Bank is present but seeks adjournment as bank documents not available with him.

Request considered and allowed.

PW Prem Chand is also present but could not be examined as Id counsel for defendant also seeks adjournment. Requests heard and allowed. On request, case is adjourned to 12.07.2023 for plaintiff evidence. Witnesses present in the court are bound down for the date fixed. Ld counsel for defendant is directed to cross examine first witness Prem Chand as he is old age. Witness Anil Kumar from Punjab National Bank directed to brought the documents on the next date of hearing.

Dated 12.04.2023.”

“PW 1 Prem Chand and partly cross examined. His further cross examination is deferred for want of original documents. On request, case is adjourned to 16.08.2023 for further cross examination of PW 1 and for remaining plaintiff evidence. PW Anil Kumar from Punjab National Bank was bound for today but he failed to appear before the Court. Let, notice to him be issued for the date fixed. Witness PW 1 Prem Chand is bound down for the date fixed.

Dated 12.07.2023.”

“No PW is prese