119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1507-2026 Date of Decision: February 16, 2026 Jaswant Singh …Pe//oner Versus Punjab State Power Corpora/on Ltd. and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral)

The pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner–plain(cid:24)ff is prosecu(cid:24)ng Civil Suit No. CS-246-

2022 (cid:24)tled Jaswant Singh v. Punjab State Power Corpora(cid:23)on Limited and others, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout. He is aggrieved by order dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure P-10), whereby his evidence has been ordered to be closed.

2. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner submits that an applica(cid:24)on (Annexure P-12) had been moved in January 2025 seeking summoning of six witnesses, whose tes(cid:24)mony was stated to be material for adjudica(cid:24)on of the controversy. Pursuant thereto, summons were issued by the trial Court. As reflected in order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P-9), two of the summoned witnesses had been duly served but failed to appear. In respect of the remaining four witnesses, no report regarding service or otherwise was available on record. It is contended that in such circumstances, the learned trial Court erred in closing the plain(cid:24)ff’s evidence without exhaus(cid:24)ng the process contemplated under law for securing a9endance of summoned witnesses.

3. No(cid:24)ce of mo(cid:24)on.

4. Mr. Mehtab Singh Bha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, has entered appearance and opposed the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on. He submits that the plain(cid:24)ff had already availed as many as 39 effec(cid:24)ve opportuni(cid:24)es to conclude his evidence, as no(cid:24)ced in the impugned order itself. According to him, the trial Court, in exercise of its discre(cid:24)on to regulate proceedings and prevent protrac(cid:24)on of trial, was jus(cid:24)fied in closing the evidence.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the par(cid:24)es, this Court is of the view that while the power of the trial Court to close evidence on account of repeated adjournments cannot be doubted, such power must be exercised judiciously and in consonance with the procedural safeguards embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure. The object of procedural law is to advance the cause of jus(cid:24)ce and not to foreclose adjudica(cid:24)on on merits, par(cid:24)cularly where a party has invoked the coercive process of the Court for securing a9endance of witnesses.

6. It is not a case where the plain(cid:24)ff was required to produce witnesses at his own responsibility and failed to do so. Rather, the record reveals that a specific applica(cid:24)on (Annexure P-12) for summoning six witnesses was allowed and process was issued by the Court. Once summons had been issued through Court process and two witnesses stood duly served but failed to appear, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to take appropriate steps under Order XVI CPC to secure their a9endance, including issuance of bailable warrants, if so warranted. Similarly, in respect of the remaining four witnesses, the Court was required to examine the service report and ensure that process had been duly executed before drawing any adverse inference against the plain(cid:24)ff.

7. The closure of evidence in the face of incomplete process and without resort to available coercive measures amounts to penalising a li(cid:24)gant for defaults not a9ributable to him. Though delay in trial is a ma9er of concern, expedi(cid:24)on cannot be achieved at the cost of denying a party reasonable opportunity to lead material evidence, especially when such evidence has been sought through due process of Court.

8. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner has fairly submi9ed that the plain(cid:24)ff has already examined himself and only the six witnesses men(cid:24)oned in Annexure P-12 remain to be examined. In the interest of balancing expedi(cid:24