IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.01.2026 HARISH SINGH BHALLA ....Petitioner Versus DAYAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khadoor Sahib, in Civil Suit No.59 dated 22.04.2021, whereby, learned trial Court, closed the evidence of the plaintiff allegedly without analyzing the order dated

28.11.2025.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application for summoning witnesses which was moved by the plaintiff/petitioner was declined by the trial Court vide order dated 18.11.2025 and against the said order, petitioner had preferred Civil Rivision No.8679 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2025 and the petitioner was granted two effective opportunities to lead evidence, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. Thereafter, plaintiff examined three witnesses on 09.12.2025 and the case was adjourned to

23.12.2025 for remaining evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff and last opportunity was granted. It was also ordered that dasti summons be issued if required. Learned counsel further contends that on 23.12.2025, one PW Dhanna Singh was served, who had appeared and had sought some time to produce the summoned record and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 06.01.2026 for his examination. Learned counsel next contends that another witness from the office of ADGP, NRI, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) alongwith some record was also summoned for 23.12.2025, who was duly served and summons issued to him alongwith the report are annexed as Annexure P-7 but the learned trial Court did not adopt any coercive means to secure his presence as he had failed to appear despite service of summons and even the order dated 23.12.2025 is silent regarding service of summons upon the said witness. Thereafter, case was adjourned to 06.01.2026 and on the said date, one witness namely Dhanna Singh was examined and learned trial Court observed that since two effective opportunities have been granted, no further adjournment can be granted and evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was ordered to be closed. Learned counsel further contends that once one witness from the office of ADGP, NRI, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) had been served for 23.12.2025, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to secure his presence by adopting coercive means and the evidence could not have been ordered to be closed vide impugned order dated 06.01.2026. Learned counsel lastly contends that no other witness except the aforesaid witness remains to be examined and he submits that trial Court be directed to secure presence of the said witness for his examination.

4. A perusal of record thus shows that one witness from the office of ADGP, NRI, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) was summoned alongwith some record for 23.12.2025 and he was duly served with the summons. However, the order dated

23.12.2025 is silent regarding this fact and once he had not appeared, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to adopt coercive means against him and to secure his presence by issuing his bailable warrants. Case was adjourned to 06.01.2026 and on that date, the evidence of petitioner was ordered to be closed. However, once plaintiff had got the witness served and he had not appeared, the trial Court had to extend assistance to the parties to get him served through bailable warrants or by adopting other coercive means and the plaintiff could not have produced him in the Court, without the assistance of the Court. The trial Court has thus committed a material irregularity in not compelling the attendance of the summoned witness, who had faile