IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (124)

Date of Decision:-10.11.2025 SUSHMA LATA … Petitioner.

Versus LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. S.S.Panag, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P2), vide which, the evidence of the petitioner is closed by the order. Petitioner submits that the evidence of the petitioner is complete except the cross- examination of the Baljinder Kumar Sharma (PW4) is a summoned witness and petitioner has already examined him in chief and his cross-examination was deferred at the request of respondent/defendant and on that deferred date, he failed to appear and learned Civil Judge has closed the evidence of the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. Petitioner be allowed only one opportunity to produce Baljinder Kumar Sharma for cross-examination purpose.

2. I have gone through the proceedings recorded by the learned Civil Judge in order dated 20.09.2025. There is a reference of an application moved by the petitioner for summoning Baljinder Kumar Sharma as a witness. The same was allowed and on the subsequent dated i.e. 24.09.2025, Baljinder Kumar Sharma appeared in the witness box and his examination-in-chief was recorded on the basis of an affidavit and cross-examination was deferred on request of counsel for the defendant and petitioner closed the evidence in affirmative by making a statement. On the next date, PW4-Baljinder Kumar Sharma failed to appear and counsel for the petitioner made a request for adjournment which was granted. Again on 14.10.2025, Baljinder Kumar Sharma-PW4 has not come present for cross-examination and counsel for the petitioner again made a request for adjournment, which was not allowed.

3. Considering all the facts, the petitioner deserves an opportunity to produce Baljinder Kumar Sharma in witness box for his examination as Baljinder Kumar Sharma has already been produced as a witness and his examination-in-chief has been recorded and cross-examination was deferred initially at the request of respondent/defendant but subsequently on two dates, Baljinder Kumar Sharma failed to appear and counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to adjourn the case. When a summoned witness is bound down by the Court, it is the duty of the Court to procure the presence of that witness and in case, witness fails to appear in the Court on the date for which, he is bound down, then the Court is obligated to issue coercive process. However in the present case, without resorting to any coercive process to procure the presence of PW4-Baljinder Kumar Sharma, learned Civil Judge has denied opportunity to the petitioner and closed the evidence of the petitioner. Same would certainly harm the cause of the petitioner as his examination-in-chief which has already been recorded would not be read into evidence for want of cross-examination. It is a clear case where the learned Civil Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. The order passed by learned Civil Judge suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be set aside.

4. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted only one effective opportunity to produce Baljinder Kumar Sharma for cross-

examination.

5. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

10^th November, 2025 JUDGE

S. Pathania