1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:06.02.2026 Tara Singh ...Petitioner Versus Bank of India and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. K.K. Goyal, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide which his evidence was closed as petitioner-plaintiff had failed to lead and conclude his evidence despite several last and final opportunities. 2. Perusal of interim orders reveal that numerous opportunities for concluding evidence including last opportunities and imposition of cost were accorded to petitioner-plaintiff, however, he had failed to conclude his evidence.

3. On 04.10.2021 case was fixed for petitioners evidence. Before impugned order was passed, case was taken up on 25 occasions. On 07 occasions proceedings could not take place as Lawyer’s had abstained work. On 04 occasions, Court was not held. As many as on 10 occasion despite effective opportunity, no witness was present from 04.10.2021 to

09.10.2025. Despite passing of 4 years only one witness was examined.

4. Last few proceedings show that on 11.07.2024, no witness was present on behalf of plaintiff and case was adjourned to 23.08.2024 subject to last opportunity and cost of Rs. 500/-. Even on 23.08.2024 also, no witness was present and case was adjourned to 07.10.2024 for conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence on request of learned counsel for plaintiff, subject to last opportunity with caution that appropriate order will be passed. Thereafter, on 18.11.2024 again no witness came present before the Court and case was adjourned. On next date of hearing i.e. 15.01.2025 and 28.02.2025, same situation prevailed. Subsequently, on 15.04.2025, on statement of plaintiff that entire evidence shall be concluded on next date of hearing, failing which closure of evidence may be ordered, adjournment was granted to plaintiff. Thereafter also, no witness appeared on behalf of plaintiff and in the interest of justice, once again further opportunity was granted with caution of closure of evidence to plaintiff in case he fails to lead evidence. Eventually, on 11.07.2025 also no witness came present before the Court and an application for summoning the witness on payment of diet money was moved. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) after considering that case is pending for plaintiff’s evidence for more than 3^1/2 years and failure of plaintiff of conclude evidence despite statement and affording due opportunities, dismissed the said application and again granted final opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff. Finally, on 09.10.2025, when position remained the same on part of petitioner-plaintiff, evidence of plaintiff was closed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana.

5. From the above noted facts, it is clearly made out that despite due opportunities to lead evidence, petitioner-plaintiff failed to appear and conclude the same, without any just cause. The tendency of parties/advocates who try to force the Courts to pass adverse orders is highly condemnable. Conduct of petitioner-plaintiff is highly condemnable.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff argued that learned Trial Court has closed the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff without any fault of the petitioner-plaintiff as on most of dates of hearing either lawyers were abstaining from work or regular Court was on leave and even the trial Court has not made effort to call the witnesses. It is, therefore, requested that petitioner-plaintiff be not penalised.

7. Petitioner-plaintiff cannot be absolved as he has been given sufficient time to lead and conclude evidence However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted so that matter is not decided unheard subject to exemplary cost of Rs.40,000/- payable to defendant to the extent of half and remaining Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with DLSA, Ludhiana.

8.