[137] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [1] CR-3979-2024 (O&M)

Reserved on 03.11.2025 Pronounced on 15.01.2026 Uploaded on 15.01.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes Amrik Singh …Petitioner versus Harjodh Singh and others ….Respondents [2] CR-4364-2024(O&M)

Amrik Singh …Petitioner versus Harjodh Singh and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate and Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1.

(in both petitions)

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

[1] These are two revisions filed by the plaintiff.

[2] By way of CR-3979-2024, petitioner has impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to lead additional evidence to prove excerpt submitted by the Revenue Officer on

16.08.2023 by examining him has been ordered to be dismissed.

[3] CR-4364-2024 is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff impugning order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby evidence of the plaintiff has been ordered to be closed.

[4] Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are joint owners in possession of the suit land.

[5] Plaintiff claimed that the suit property in the hands of his father, namely Mohinder Singh, was ancestral in nature. Mohinder Singh was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and was not capable of understanding the effect of his actions. Transfer deed executed by Mohinder Singh dated

23.07.2018 is thus illegal, null and void.

[6] In order to prove the ancestral nature of land, plaintiff moved an application before the learned Trial Court for issuance of directions to Special Kanungo through Naib Tehsildar, Jalandhar, to prepare excerpt pertaining to inheritance of the suit property and to submit his report. The application was allowed vide Order dated 17.11.2022. A direction was issued that a Special Kanungo be appointed to prepare excerpt and to submit report with respect to inheritance of the suit property.

[7] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn attention of this Court to Order dated 16.08.2023 to submit that uptil 16.08.2023, report could not be summoned. Ahlmad attached to the Court was warned to be careful in future. He submits that as a footnote to the said order, a report was made by the Ahlmad submitting that at this stage, excerpt report has been received. She submits that excerpt report having been submitted at the back of the petitioner’s counsel without supply of copy thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff could not cross-examine the Revenue Officer. The evidence of the petitioner was wrongly closed on 01.12.2023. He submits that immediately thereafter the present application seeking permission to lead additional evidence was submitted on 18.12.2023. The learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the same too.

[8] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is against the record. He submits that from 16.08.2023, the matter was adjourned to 13.09.2023. In Order dated 13.09.2023, it was specifically mentioned by the Court that the report of excerpt has been received and attached. Thus, it cannot be said that the report was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Even after 13.09.2023, the plaintiff availed three opportunities but did not lead any evidence. It is in these circumstances that the Court vide Order dated 01.12.2023 noticed that the plaintiff despite having availed numerous opportunities failed to lead evidence and was constrained to close his evidence.

[9] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through record(s) of the case.

[10] In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff approached this Court un