IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.07.2025 Inder Raj Gandhi and others ...Petitioners Versus Inder Malik (since deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

VIKAS SURI, J.

1. Prayer in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby evidence of the defendant/petitioners evidence has been closed by Court order.

2. Briefly stated, plaintiff/respondent-Inder Malik filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3 lakh along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant/petitioners. The said suit was filed on 02.01.2018 and after completion of pleadings, the issues were framed on 16.01.2020. The plaintiff/respondent availed numerous opportunities to conclude his evidence, which was closed vide order dated 18.10.2024. However, PW-1 was cross-examined on the subsequent hearing on 28.01.2025. The case was posted to 27.02.2025 for defendants’

evidence, however, on the said date, no substantial hearing took place as the District Bar Association, Panchkula, was observing ‘no work day’. On the third effective opportunity afforded to the defendant/petitioners to lead their evidence, last opportunity was granted. The defendant/petitioners were cautioned that failing to conclude the evidence on the next date of hearing, their evidence shall be deemed to be closed by Court order. Thereafter, on the subsequent hearing, petitioner Inder Raj Gandhi (DW-1) was examined-in-chief but his cross-examination was deferred at the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Though the proceedings were deferred for cross-examination of DW-1, however, the defendants’ evidence was closed by Court order, except for the aforesaid cross-examination, vide order dated 18.04.2025. 3. The aforesaid order has been assailed by way of the instant revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since framing of the issues on 16.01.2020, the plaintiff was granted 14 effective opportunities to conclude his evidence. It is further pointed out that even after the 11^th effective opportunity granted to the plaintiff, another opportunity was granted subject to costs, which was availed by the plaintiff. Finally, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order on 18.10.2024. Despite being mindful of the fact that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed by Court order, the trial Court on a subsequent hearing, permitted the plaintiff/respondents to suffer a statement closing evidence of the plaintiff and reserving the right to produce rebuttal evidence. On the other hand, defendant/petitioners have not been granted proper and sufficient opportunity to lead their evidence. It is further urged that on the third effective opportunity itself, last opportunity was granted to the defendant/petitioners to conclude their entire evidence, failing which the defendants’ evidence was to be closed by Court order on the subsequent hearing. Hence, the impugned order was passed on 18.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the defendants have been prejudiced for not having been afforded due and proper opportunity to adduce their evidence in support of their case. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, prays for only one effective opportunity to conclude their entire evidence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and with his able assistance perused the paper-book.

6. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to the respondents as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expense to the plaintiff/respondents.

7. Admittedly, the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3 lakh on 02.01.2018 and the issues were struck on 16.01.2020. The plaintiff was granted