IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-9078-2025 (O&M)

Decided on : 08.12.2025 Des Raj & Anr. ……Petitioners Versus Dalbir Chand ……Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Ayna Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

(through VC)

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The petitioners are defendants in Civil Suit No. CS-

311/2020 titled ‘Dalbir Chand v. Des Raj & Anr.’ pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana. They challenge the order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) by which the trial Court closed the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 and declined to record their statement.

2. It is contended by Ld. Counsel that DW-2 and DW-3 were produced on 21.11.2025. At the time fixed by the Court, however, the petitioners’ counsel was engaged in proceedings before another Court and therefore, did not appear; the witnesses subsequently appeared but the trial Court did no record their evidence and closed the same. An application by the defendants on the same day seeking recall/recorder of the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination was rejected on the ground that, in the trial Court’s view, the defendants had previously adopted delaying tactics.

3. No doubt that the opportunity to examine the witness is an essential element of a party’s right to a fair trial, and denial of a reasonable opportunity to examine can cause prejudice which may not be cured. But, at the same time, trial Courts possess a judicial discretion to regulate proceedings, including the sequencing and closure of evidence, to ensure orderly and expeditious disposal of cases. That discretion must, however, be exercised judicially, by reference to relevant facts, on rational grounds, and not in a manner that defeats the fundamental right of a party to test the case against it. Where a Court declines to examine a witness on the basis of assumed or past misconduct, the order must record clear reasons and be proportionate to the circumstances.

4. In present case, the witnesses in question were produced on the date fixed; they did appear albeit not at the very moment originally listed. The petitioners say that non-appearance of their counsel at the exact clock time was due to his engagement before another Court, an explanation which, on the materials before this Court, is not shown to be mala fide or an excuse manufactured to delay proceedings.

5. The trial Court’s conclusion that the defendants were adopting delaying tactics appears to have been formed summarily. While there is no dispute that the Court must guard against abuse of process, the impugned order does not disclose a careful weighing of prejudice to the defendants against the manifest prejudice that would be suffered by them, if they were deprived of the opportunity to examine DW-2 and DW-3. The closure of the witnesses’ evidence, in the circumstances recorded, works a serious curtailment of the defendants’ right to test the case against them. Where the prejudice to a party in being denied examination of its witnesses is real and the cause of non-appearance is not shown to be culpable or deliberate, the appellate jurisdiction or supervisory power of this Court can be invoked to correct the trial Court’s exercise of discretion.

6. For these reasons, the Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in haste and calls for interference. That interference is, however, to be tempered by the need to prevent further inconvenience to the plaintiff and to discourage dilatory conduct.

7. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) is set aside to the extent it closed the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 and refused the defendants an opportunity to have those witnesses cross-examined by the plaintiff. The trial Court is directed to afford the plaintiff-respondent one opportunity to cross-examine DW-2 and DW-3. The trial Court shall give parties at least seven days’ clear notice and shall fix a specific date for the appearance of DW-2 and DW-3 for completio