IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KAUR SINGH GREWAL ......Petitioner Vs.

GURDEEP KAUR AND ORS. ......Respondents Reserved on : 18.02.2026 Pronounced on: 25.02.2026 Uploaded on: 25.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate (through v.c.)

Ms. Savpreet Gujral, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent No.1(a).

Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated

01.10.2025 vide which two applications were allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana has wrongly allowed the applications filed by the respondents. He therefore, prays that the present revision petition be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that the applications were rightly allowed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, therefore, he prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of the case with their able assistance.

5. The first application was filed under Section 151 read with Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) for recalling the order dated 25.04.2024. vide which oral evidence of defendants no.1[a] and 4 was closed by order and for recalling DW-2 for his cross-examination by the plaintiff. The second application was filed for permission to get recorded statement of Harjit Singh son of Baljit Singh Deol son of Nikka Singh Deol through video conferencing.

6. So far as the first application filed under Section 151 read with Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC for recalling of order dated 25.04.2024 is concerned, the same was filed by mentioning therein that plaintiff had filed false and frivolous suit on 02.06.2005. The issues were framed on 23.09.2014 and thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of plaintiff for 18.10.2014. The plaintiff was granted numerous opportunities for his evidence and the Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff on 13.2.2024 by order and the case was adjourned to 19.2.2024 for defendants' evidence. On 19.2.2024 defendants No.1 and 4 examined two witnesses DW1 Baljinder Singh and DW2 Tejinder Singh and the case was adjourned to 27.2.2024 for cross-examination of both the witnesses. On 27.2.2024 learned counsel for defendant No.2 partly cross-examined DW-2 Tejinder Singh and on the same day, counsel for the plaintiff moved an application for directing the defendants to produce the documents for effective cross-examination and the said application was disposed of with the direction to the counsel for plaintiff to cross-examine the witness on the next date of hearing. The counsel for the plaintiff also moved another application for summoning the record for effective cross-examination of witness and the same was also disposed of with the direction to the plaintiff for bringing the record at his own responsibility for cross-examination of witness and the case was adjourned to 1.3.2024. On 1.3.2024 both DW-1 and DW-2 were present and cross-examined by the counsel for defendant No.2 and cross-examination of both witnesses were deferred on the request of plaintiff and the case was adjourned to 6.3.2024. On 6.3.2024 DW1 Baljinder Singh was present and was cross-examined by counsel for the plaintiff and his further cross- examination was deferred for 13.3.2024. On 13.3.2024 DW1 Baljinder Singh was present and partly cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiff and case was adjourned to 19.3.2024 for further cross-examination and for entire evidence of defendants. On 19.3.2024 DW1 was present and partly cross- examined and his further cross-examination was deferred for 5.4.2024. On 5.4.2024 DW1 was present but he could not be cross examined due to non- a