(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5770-2024 (O&M)

Decided on : 11.03.2025 Mita ...... Petitioner Versus Balbir and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***

Present : Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. K.S.Dhamora, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J (ORAL)

CM-3892-CII-2025 Today, the case is fixed for arguments on the instant application preferred under Section 151 CPC for directing the trial Court to adjourn the hearing of the civil suit beyond the date fixed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the main case itself be heard.

Accordingly, the hearing in the main case is pre-poned from

14.05.2025 to today itself.

The application accordingly stands disposed of.

CR-5770-2024 The present revision petition is directed against the order dated (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)

20.09.2024 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide which the application moved by the petitioner and proforma respondents No.3 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner- defendant’) under Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for disallowing respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents-plaintiffs’) from appearing as witnesses was rejected.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 08.07.2016 in respect of agricultural land measuring 30 kanals 11 marlas (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the disputed land’), situated at Village Chuli Bagrian, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar (Annexure P-1) against the petitioner-defendant.

3. The suit was opposed by way of a written statement (Annexure P-2). Issues were initially framed on 18.05.2018 and were subsequently re- framed on 18.03.2021. The respondents-plaintiffs examined three witnesses. However, when the respondents-plaintiffs intended to appear as witnesses, an application under Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC (Annexure P-5) was moved by the petitioner-defendant to disallow the respondents-plaintiffs from appearing as witnesses. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-6). The application was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated

20.09.2024, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)

impugned order is not sustainable. Reference has been made to the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC and it has been submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs should have appeared as witnesses in the first instance and if they had not so appeared, they should have moved an application seeking permission of the Court to appear as witnesses which was also not done. However, an application was moved by the petitioner-defendant to disallow the respondents-plaintiffs from appearing as witnesses which has been dismissed on flimsy grounds.

6. Learned counsel submits that the reasons given by the respondents-plaintiffs in reply to the application moved by the petitioner- defendant were devoid of logic and no valid reason was given for non- e