(113) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:25.02.2026 MAHENDER ...Petitioner Vs.

VED PARKASH ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. S.S.Momi, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for permission to further cross-examine PW-4, Angrej, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery on the basis of a pronote alleged to have been executed on 28.04.2015. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit, specifically denying the execution of any pronote and alleging that the same is a fabricated document prepared in connivance with the family members of the plaintiff. After framing of issues, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and thereafter examined PW-4, Angrej Kumar, the alleged scribe of the pronote. PW-4 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has been working as a commission agent since 1992, owns Shop No. 65 in the Kaithal grain market, that the plaintiff and his family members are his clients, and that he operates a registered partnership firm. While the case was still pending for the remaining evidence of the plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant moved an application seeking permission to further cross-examine PW-4 on the ground that certain material questions regarding the particulars of the registration certificate of his partnership firm, its name and style, place of business, and details relating to sales tax and income tax returns could not be put to the witness during the earlier cross-examination. Upon notice, the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 26.05.2025. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and does not meet the standards of judicial propriety, being arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law. He submitted that the learned Civil Judge failed to appreciate that the application for further cross-examination was not filed with an intention to delay the proceedings, but rather to elicit material documentary evidence pertaining to the registration status, financial affairs, and business dealings of the partnership firm of PW-4. It was further contended that the learned Trial Court committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by holding that the defendant had already been granted sufficient opportunities, without considering that the earlier cross-examination was limited in scope and did not cover all necessary and relevant aspects. According to the petitioner, the learned Trial Court failed to apply the test of relevance and necessity while adjudicating the application. Learned counsel also argued that the Trial Court erred in concluding that no plausible explanation had been furnished by the petitioner, whereas the application specifically explained that the relevant documentary material could not be immediately produced or relied upon at the time of the earlier cross-examination. He emphasized that procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, and the learned Civil Judge ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to further cross-examine the witness in the interest of a fair trial. 4. I have learned counsel for the petitioner, and have perused the paper-book carefully.

5. The learned Civil Judge has recorded his findings in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order, which read as under:

“After conside