IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123 Date of Decision:-29.10.2025 PARDEEP KUMAR MEHTA … Appellant Versus KAMLESH CHANDER MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate for the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

Invoking the extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, whereby the learned Court below, in the purported exercise of judicial discretion, has dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), thereby occasioning a manifest failure of justice.

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking recall and re-examination of witnesses DW-3, DW-7, and DW-8 in exercise of the Court’s discretion under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, inter alia on the grounds that DW-7 and DW-8 were examined on 21.04.2025 pursuant to the directions of this Court, but certain relevant judicial records sought by the petitioner from the office of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, through an application filed before the District Legal Services Authority (for short ‘DLSA’) on 16.04.2025, were not supplied by the said date.

2.1. It was further averred that on 21.04.2025, respondent No.1- Kamlesh Chander Mahajan, appearing in Court in the attire of an advocate, proceeded to examine DW-7 and DW-8 without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent. During such proceedings, it was alleged that the petitioner’s Legal Aid Counsel was subjected to unwarranted interference and harassment by the said respondent. The petitioner, therefore, sought the recall of DW-3 Atul Sharma, DW-8 Arvind Singh and DW-7 Vijay Kumar Bagga to ensure a fair and comprehensive adjudication of the matter.

2.2. It was further submitted that the petitioner had also summoned the record of two civil appeals from Atul Sharma, Record Keeper; however, only one set of records was produced. After seeking reply and hearing arguments from both sides, the learned Trial Court, without adequately appreciating the procedural lapses and prejudice occasioned to the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the application vide the impugned order. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under: - “4. Heard, considered and gone through file.

Perusal of file reveals that on 30.7.2024, a detailed order was passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court and one more opportunity was granted to defendant to lead evidence despite the fact that it was the last opportunity and subsequently, on 7.8.2024, the evidence of defendant was closed by order. On 21.9.2024, Pardeep Kumar Mehta stated before the court that he has filed Revision petition before Hon'ble High Court qua order dated 7.8.2024, which is pending and accordingly, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, on 21.3.2025, it was stated that the order of Hon'ble High Court was received, in which, an order dated 7.8.2024 was set aside and one opportunity was granted to conclude the evidence. Thereafter, matter was adjourned to 21.4.2025 and on this day, only two witnesses DW7-Vijay Kumar and DW8-Arvind Singh were put forth by defendant and keeping in view the orders of Hon'ble High Court, evidence of defendant was closed and case was adjourned to 8.5.2025 for rebuttal evidence, if any or for arguments. Subsequently, on 8.5.2025, an application for recalling witnesses DW7, DW8 and DW3 to re-examine for further examination in chief, was filed by defendant.

Looking into the fact that already numerous opportunities have been granted to defendant to conclude the evidence, even extra concessional opportunities have been granted to defendant to conclude the evidence, and even Hon'ble High Court granted opportunity