IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (115) CR No. 9348 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 12.12.2025 Inderjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurpal Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting- aside the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ajnala in Civil Suit No. i.e. CS-79-2022, whereby the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of ₹40,00,000/- as damages on account of defamation/lowering the reputation of the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondent-Gurpal Singh and others. Upon notice of the suit, the respondents-defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Thereafter, issues were framed on 17.10.2022 including the issue of ‘Relief’

and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff.

3. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 shows that several opportunities were given to the petitioner-plaintiff to conclude his evidence but he failed to do so and ultimately, evidence of the petitioner- plaintiff was closed by order. In the impugned order dated 08.09.2025, it was held by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ajnala that since the plaintiff has availed numerous opportunities but he failed to conclude his evidence, hence no justification is made out to further adjourn the case and accordingly, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, petitioner had taken numerous effective opportunities for leading his evidence but he failed to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has a valuable interest involved in the lis and prays for one effective opportunity to conclude his entire evidence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

6. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondents.

7. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-plaintiff should be given one more opportunity to lead his entire evidence so that the matter may be adjudicated on its merits.

8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ajnala is hereby set aside, subject to the petitioner ₹

depositing costs of 5,000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Ajnala.

9. The petitioner-plaintiff shall appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed and on his production of receipt qua deposition of costs, the trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner-

plaintiff to conclude his entire evidence.

10. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ajnala for compliance.

December 12, 2025 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No