IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 12.11.2025 AmanpreetSingh Hanjra ...Petitioner Versus Shekhar Gupta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Manish Giri, Advocate and Mr. Manveer Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has instituted the present petition to assail the order dated 17.10.2025, whereby the learned Trial Court, in the exercise of its discretion, closed the evidence of the petitioner/defendant by order of the Court.

2. It is contended in the petition that civil suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit has been instituted by respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff concluded his evidence and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner/defendant on 06.02.2025 and on

28.05.2025, the petitioner/defendant moved an application for summoning of official witnesses which was allowed and petitioner/defendant deposited the diet money of the witnesses and thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time for evidence of the defendants but the presence of the officials witnesses could not be procured by the Court by issuing the process rather the Court directed the petitioner to obtain Dasti summons and has even imposed costs on account of adjournments. On 09.09.2025 officials of HDFC Bank, Phase 7, Mohali and one Gurpreet Singh was present in the Court as witnesses of the petitioner but they were not examined and were bound down and from 19.09.2025 the case was further adjourned to 25.09.2025 for evidence of defendants. The order of 25.09.2025 reads as under :-

“Previous cost has been paid. DW Gurpreet Singh is present again but could not be examined and bound down for the next date of hearing on the request of learned counsel for the defendant. DW concerned official of HDFC bank Phase VII, Mohali not come present despite being bound down. As such, his bailble warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount be issued for 17.10.2025.

Further, DW Balwinder was supposed to be brought on the responsibility of the defendant. Dasti summon was also taken by defendant. However, he failed to produce the said witness before the Court. On the request of learned counsel for the defendant, one more opportunity is granted to the defendant to produce the said witness before the Court on the next date of hearing. Fresh notice to above said witness namely Balwinder be again issued for the date fixed i.e. 17.10.2025. Dasti summons be given, if so desired. This shall be last and final opportunity.”

3. On 17.10.2025, DW-4 Gurpreet Singh was examined on behalf of the defendant; however, no other witness was available for examination on that day. Consequently, the learned Trial Court, noting that as many as eighteen effective opportunities including the last and final opportunity had already been availed by the defendant, and further observing that the matter falls within the “Action Plan” category, proceeded to close the evidence of the defendant by order of the Court.

4. The order dated 17.10.2025 has been made the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. The respondent/caveator has entered appearance through Mr. Davinder Singh Khurana, Advocate, and Mr.

Rajinder Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the material available on record.

6. A careful examination of the record reveals that the petitioner/defendant had duly moved an application dated 28.05.2025 seeking the issuance of summons to three witnesses, namely, Balwinder Singh, the concerned Clerk of HDFC Bank, Phase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (along with the relevant record), and the concerned Clerk of HDFC Bank, Phase–3BII, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (along with the relevant record). The said application was allow