129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 18.02.2026 AJIT SINGH ......PETITIONER Vs.

KARAMJIT KAUR .........RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr.Chetan Kapoor Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, in Civil Suit No. 735 of 2020, titled as ‘Karamjit Kaur vs. Ajit Singh’, whereby an application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) read with Section 151 thereof for recalling PW-2 Naib Singh for the purpose of limited further cross-

examination has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff Karamjit Kaur, wife of Sohan Singh, filed Civil Suit No. 735 of 2020 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.05.2018 in respect of the land, the details whereof are given in the plaint (Annexure P-1), against the present petitioner-defendant Ajit Singh. The respondent-plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction and, in the alternative, recovery.

2.1 Notice of the suit was issued to the present petitioner- defendant, who appeared through counsel and filed his written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, six issues, including the issue of relief, were framed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the respondent-plaintiff. During the course of plaintiff’s evidence, PW-2 Naib Singh was examined and duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant before the learned trial Court.

2.2 Subsequently, after completion of the cross-examination of PW-2 Naib Singh, the petitioner, through counsel, moved an application dated 28.11.2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 thereof (Annexure P-6) for recalling PW-2 Naib Singh for further cross- examination. Notice of the said application was issued to the respondent- plaintiff, who filed a reply. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application vide order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-8), which is the order under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) is contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and has resulted in denial of a fair opportunity of hearing, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

3.1 It is further submitted that although PW-2 Naib Singh was examined and duly cross-examined, certain documents were traced subsequently, which were required to be confronted to the said witness. It is contended that since the said documents could not be produced at the time of cross-examination, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application for recalling PW-2 Naib Singh so as to confront him with the said documents and to bring the real controversy on record. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) be set aside and the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 thereof be allowed.

4. In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that issuance of notice to the respondent-plaintiff would unnecessarily delay the proceedings; therefore, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

5. On hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to first reproduce the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which read as under:-

“Order XVIII Hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

17.Court may recall