IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-7503-2025 (O&M) Decided on:-28.10.2025 Sunil Dhawan And Others ....Petitioners VERSUS Anil Dhawan And Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of the petitioners–defendants was ordered to be closed by court order.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent–plaintiff filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds of all the immovable properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1, claiming one- third share each, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, alienating or creating any charge beyond their respective shares. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the transfer deed executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.3 is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

3. The petitioners–defendants filed their written statement contesting the claim and subsequently filed a written statement to the amended plaint also. After framing of issues, the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. The plaintiff’s evidence commenced on 04.10.2022 and continued for more than two and a half years. Ultimately, as the plaintiff failed to conclude the same, his evidence was closed by order dated 04.04.2025, and the case was adjourned for defendants’ evidence. During the course of their evidence, the defendants examined certain witnesses, including DW2 Inderjit Singh, Chartered Accountant of M/s Inderjit Singh & Associates, and DW Jatinder Singh, Clerk from the HRC Branch. Though DW Jatinder Singh appeared on 23.07.2025, he could not be examined for want of record and was bound down for the next date, i.e. 06.08.2025. However, on that date, he did not appear, and hence, bailable warrants were issued against him. DW2 Inderjit Singh, who was present, was examined-in-chief, but his cross- examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. On subsequent dates, petitioner No.1 and his paternal aunt Smt. Kiran Rani also appeared and were examined in chief on 05.09.2025. Their cross-examination was deferred on the plaintiff’s request and the case was adjourned to 16.09.2025. Unfortunately, on 11.09.2025, petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and was admitted in NHS Hospital, Jalandhar City, where he remained under treatment till 16.09.2025. Due to his serious medical condition and hospitalization, neither petitioner No.1 nor his aunt could appear for cross-examination on that date. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance was allowed by the learned Trial Court, and the matter was adjourned to 30.09.2025. Despite the genuine illness of petitioner No.1, as supported by medical records and prescription slips (Annexures P-2, P-5, and P-11), the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the medical condition and the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, closed the defendants’ evidence by order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-13).

Submissions of Counsel for the Petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no intentional or deliberate default on the part of the petitioners in not concluding their evidence. The absence of petitioner No.1 and his witness was caused purely by unavoidable medical circumstances. It is further contended that DW2 Inderjit Singh is a summoned witness who has already been examined in chief, and his cross-examination remains pending only due to the plaintiff’s adjournments. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalized for the non-appearance or default of a summoned witness. The learned trial Court has passe