5IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

200-U Date of Decision:02.02.2026 MEWA SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LR......Petitioner Vs RAJU SINGH @ RAJA SINGH (DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS AND ORS.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the orders dated 28.10.2025 and 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala as well as an order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

[2]. Briefly stating the petitioner(s)/plaintiff(s) while claiming themselves co-sharers in the suit property, filed a suit for joint possession as well as for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent(s)/defendant(s). The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2019. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner(s)/plaintiff(s) preferred an Appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The said application was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 06.10.2025, while remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to record additional evidence by granting one effective opportunity to the petitioner(s)/plaintiff(s).

Relevant paragraph No.13 thereof is extracted hereunder:-

“13. So, in view of the above discussion, the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are none else but the revenue record pertaining to the subject matter and there is no chance of its fabrication at this stage. In the present case, it is the appellants, who want to produce mutations on the basis of which ancestral nature of the property is to be decided, so these are material documents to be proved and are likely to effect the decision of the court in one way or the other. So, these have material bearing to the core of the issue.

Accordingly, the application for additional evidence moved by the appellants is hereby allowed and matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction to record evidence of the appellants by giving him one effective opportunity to lead the aforesaid evidence from the date of receipt of this file subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty thousand) so as to compensate the other party for delay and after the recording of aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court shall send the file to this Court immediately/30 days.

The record of learned trial Court as well as copy of this order be sent to the successor of learned trial Court for compliance. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 14.10.2025 and trial Court shall return the file to this Court immediately after doing the needful.”

[3]. Thereafter, petitioner(s)/plaintiff(s) appeared before the learned Trial Court with a prayer for summoning of their witnesses, which was allowed vide order dated 16.10.2025, while granting them an opportunity, so as to examine two witnesses i.e. concerned Clerk from the office of Special Kanungo, DC Office, Ludhiana and Mohd. Ashraf, Urdu Translator, Chamber No.111, Judicial Court Complex, Malerkotla along with the relevant records. The operative part from the order dated 16.10.2025 is extracted hereunder:-

“As per the aforementioned order of the Ld. Appellate Court the trial court is to grant one effective opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff to lead the aforementioned evidence. Perusal of the said order of the Ld. Appellate court further shows that the ld. Appellate court has only allowed the applicant/plaintiff to summon the aforementioned witnesses to prove the record of mutation No.226 and No.272 regarding the ownership of Anoopi @ Anolle. Thus, only record with regard to the said mutation no.226 and 272 is allowed to be summoned and request to summon record mentioned at serial No.1(i)(b),(c), (d), (e),