IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108-1)

CR-34-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision:- 28.01.2025 Reema and others ... Petitioners Versus Deep Rattan and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Kashish Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

None for respondent No.3.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL

1. Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 07.12.2018, Annexure P-8, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, whereby an application, Annexure P-6, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 for permitting plaintiff No.1 to get himself cross-examined, has been accepted.

2. Counsel for the petitioners states that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of 2/3^rd share of the suit property on the basis of a WILL dated 28.03.2006 and for declaration to the effect that mutation dated 14.06.2010 regarding inheritance of Shanti Devi sanctioned on the basis of alleged WILL dated 16.08.1996 is a result of fraud. Upon notice, petitioners and respondent No.3, who were impleaded as defendants, filed a joint written statement contesting the suit and on the basis of the pleading of the parties, issues were framed on 11.07.2013, Annexure P-1. Counsel submits that after availing numerous opportunities, when the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 could not conclude their evidence, the Trial Court by order dated 02.01.2018, Annexure P-3, closed their evidence. It is his assertion that after the defendants concluded their evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application, Annexure P-6, seeking permission for the plaintiff-Deep Rattan to step into the witness box for his cross-examination, which has been accepted by the Trial Court vide order impugned herein. It is his argument that after the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by an order of the Trial Court, they cannot be permitted to produce a witness for cross-examination without challenging the order, whereby their evidence was closed.

3. Counsel for plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 on the other hand has supported the impugned order and urges that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, in case, Deep Rattan, who is a material witness, is permitted to be cross-examined. He asserts that the defendants have been compensated with costs.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

5. Civil Suit filed by plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 is pending before the Trial Court since 2013 and issues were framed on 11.07.2013. A perusal of order, Annexure P-3, passed by the Trial Court shows that the plaintiffs were granted as many as 25 opportunities, but failed to conclude their evidence. Request for deferment made on their behalf was declined and the plaintiff’s evidence was closed by an order dated 02.01.2018, Annexure P-3, passed by the Trial Court, which reads as under:-

“No PW is present. Perusal of file reveals that the case is old one and pertains to the year 2013 action plan cases. Moreover, plaintiff has already availed more than 25 opportunities but failed to conclude its evidence. Finding no justification for giving more adjournment for evidence of plaintiff, the evidence of plaintiff is, hereby, closed by order. Now for evidence of defendants, case is adjourned to 09.01.2018. PF/DM and list of witnesses, if any, be filed forthwith.”

6. Plaintiffs never challenged this order and after the defendants concluded their evidence, they filed an application, Annexure P-6, for recalling Deep Rattan for his cross-examination, which has been accepted vide the impugned order. An examination of the interim orders passed by the Trial Court shows that PW-Deep Rattan had been examined by the Trial Court on 10.04.2017 and his cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the defendants as the copies of the affidavit ha